Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #63278 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-15 14:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-07-14 13:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 442 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 14:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 14:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 09:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:01 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 09:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-16 18:06 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:22 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:33 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-16 14:53 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 09:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-17 11:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 11:11 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-18 12:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 09:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 20:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:58 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 11:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 12:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-18 20:47 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-06-19 03:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 09:46 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-17 10:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 10:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-18 16:00 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 08:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-19 10:21 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 11:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 05:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 13:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 06:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 15:55 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 08:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 16:14 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 08:41 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 17:19 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-19 21:02 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 18:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-20 17:25 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-21 12:04 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 01:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 08:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 08:54 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 10:46 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 03:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-20 09:01 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 15:44 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 12:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-21 21:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-21 21:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-21 22:41 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 00:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-06-22 08:14 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 07:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 16:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:25 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-22 18:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 10:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 14:38 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 10:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 11:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 12:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 12:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:04 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 15:26 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:39 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-24 09:19 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 13:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-22 20:29 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-23 12:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 12:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2015-06-23 12:48 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 13:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 21:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 14:05 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 06:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 17:19 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 08:59 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:10 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-20 17:34 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-20 16:59 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 18:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 12:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 21:31 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 14:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-22 13:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:45 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:49 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 16:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 09:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:33 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-19 22:33 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 07:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-20 15:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-19 10:10 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 12:58 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 21:30 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 13:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 14:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 13:45 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 16:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-20 12:26 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-20 20:05 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 01:17 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 17:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-20 01:12 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-19 22:35 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 10:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 15:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-22 15:13 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 11:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:12 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 09:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 10:58 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:39 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 13:59 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 10:37 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 09:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 09:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 19:42 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 11:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-12 21:21 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 13:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-13 09:03 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 21:53 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 14:05 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 14:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 00:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-12 20:57 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 22:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 16:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 13:22 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:05 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 19:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 20:28 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 09:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 11:01 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:19 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-13 19:56 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-13 08:27 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 18:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-13 12:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-07-14 11:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 08:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 23:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-15 12:59 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-20 17:32 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 07:22 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-13 11:58 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 05:24 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-13 19:49 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 08:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 08:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 20:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 12:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 12:17 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 20:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 13:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 13:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 22:36 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 14:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:37 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 16:40 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 16:14 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 22:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 22:06 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-24 00:14 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 01:17 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-24 05:18 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 09:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 10:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 11:19 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-14 07:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-14 17:55 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 20:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-15 23:28 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 22:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:27 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-25 21:22 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:41 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 03:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 22:57 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 17:09 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 23:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 17:13 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 23:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-06-24 21:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:36 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:55 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 00:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-06-25 01:47 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 05:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 20:24 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 10:00 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 05:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 14:15 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 07:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 08:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 16:21 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 17:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 18:16 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 19:55 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-25 18:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-25 12:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 18:03 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 18:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-25 10:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 10:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 19:07 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:43 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:26 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:45 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 14:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:57 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 15:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 17:24 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 08:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 16:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 20:05 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:19 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 20:04 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:42 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 14:11 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-27 22:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-27 20:46 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-27 16:37 -0500
[OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 14:25 +0200
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:31 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-26 14:18 +0100
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 06:31 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 08:20 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 08:24 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:24 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:30 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 13:40 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 14:09 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 14:23 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 22:12 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 03:03 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-27 13:08 +0100
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-27 11:37 +0000
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-27 13:06 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:51 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:55 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 08:59 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-27 12:13 +0000
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-27 08:25 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 08:43 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-27 08:55 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 09:10 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-27 11:25 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 08:56 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-27 22:05 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-25 12:46 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 10:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:58 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 04:03 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 12:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:05 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:33 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 18:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 10:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 18:17 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 10:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 20:53 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 17:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 12:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 04:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 14:21 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 06:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 17:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 10:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 22:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 15:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-28 11:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:43 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-29 08:50 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-27 12:32 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-23 13:17 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-23 13:20 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 10:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 09:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 12:05 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 10:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-27 12:18 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 05:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 14:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 06:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-27 13:55 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 15:56 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 08:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 21:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-27 18:58 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 12:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-27 13:21 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 11:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-27 12:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 11:02 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-03 17:25 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-24 11:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 15:17 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 12:31 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-23 21:11 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 20:22 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 12:39 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-23 01:51 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 19:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-22 22:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 02:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 11:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 00:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 09:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 11:03 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:33 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 15:15 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 15:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 15:50 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 16:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 10:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:26 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:37 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 07:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 17:04 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 16:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 08:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 15:22 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-24 08:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 23:06 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 22:20 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:18 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 14:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 10:30 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 09:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 09:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 10:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-06-17 19:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-17 15:32 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 19:58 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 20:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 17:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 17:57 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 18:37 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:44 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 19:39 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 19:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 20:31 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 13:29 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 19:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-06-15 18:10 -0600
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-16 00:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 17:41 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-06-15 20:58 -0600
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-16 09:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 12:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-06-16 09:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:18 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 10:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-18 21:47 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 06:24 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Lőrinczy Zsigmond <nospam@for.me> - 2015-06-15 21:20 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 18:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:18 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-26 18:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:28 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 05:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 21:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 09:27 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-14 20:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 12:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 12:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 16:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 17:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-15 01:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 04:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-15 08:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 08:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 17:03 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 05:10 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 22:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 13:14 -0700
Page 12 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 23 Next page →
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-25 21:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pmdpoapjqk2cerld73qipfdia4do0810ig@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #64066 |
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 9:27:19 AM UTC-7, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 12:16:44 PM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
>> > > ...I would deplore any attempt to force all pointers to the
>> > > same size.
>> >
>> > In my proposal, the changes to core C would be that all pointers are
>> > the same size. Any variations to this would be included as extension
>> > to core C.
>> >
>> > This would allow all architectures which use the same size pointers
>> > to be completely inside of core C without support for those
>> > architectures which do have varying size pointers.
>> >
>> > It would not prevent them from existing, nor even being in wide use,
>> > but they would be explicitly noted for what they are (by being given
>> > them the "extension" status): oddities / peculiarities.
>>
>> I can't see that pointer size restriction gains you anything. So why
>> require it?
>
>In my "proposal," fixed size pointers is not a requirement. They are
>only defined to be part of core C. Anything which is not the same size
>is called an "extension" to core C, and is allowed. And for a feature
>like this which is in wide use it would be defined to be a known
>extension. However, I would also not define other things which are in
>use as known extensions, but still allow them as other extensions which
>encompass the full range of unique hardware abilities.
>
>I would also define a common interface into assembly code blocks for
>target machines. One of the things my compiler does is allow for
>simultaneous compiles to multiple target architectures. And in those
>cases, the need to have more than one assembly output block is
>required.
>
>#ifdef defined(__ARM__) || defined(__X86__)
>
> _asm {
>
> .x86
> // Assembly code goes here for x86
>
> .arm
> // Assembly code goes here for ARM
>
> }
>
>#else
> // "Slower" equivalent C source code goes here
>#endif
#if defined(__ARM__)
//ARM asm code
#elif defined(__X86__)
//x86 asm code
#else
//C code
#endif
>And other things. If I ever get RDC completed, you'll see it in
>practical use.
>
>You'll also see the "#stop Nnn" directive to force the compiler to
>stop compiling at that point in source code, such as after examining
>the compiler environment to see that there is no Xyz module available.
#error?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-28 10:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <558fcf3f.4859375@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #64066 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: > In my "proposal," fixed size pointers is not a requirement. They are > only defined to be part of core C. You don't even seem to know what core C _is_. Case in point... > You'll also see the "#stop Nnn" directive to force the compiler to > stop compiling at that point in source code, ...#error. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-28 03:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <304523e3-23ea-46e9-907c-a8831e631e48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64342 |
Richard Bos wrote: > You don't even seem to know what core C _is_. > Case in point... It is the name I've given to the feature set which would be exposed as that set of abilities which do not require any extensions to implement. It is not a reference to some existing thing. I am defining it. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 22:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mmch63$k86$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63959 |
On 23/06/15 18:16, David Kleinecke wrote: > I fear I started the different sized pointers mess by accident. I > apologize. Usenet threads often grow well beyond our original plans! > > I was led to the issue by considering Harvard-type hardware. Where the > data and the code are entirely separated. I advocate that kind of > hardware. Then I observed that most often programs used much more data > memory than code memory so I wondered whether - in a Harvard-type > machine - code pointers might not be shorter than data pointers. At that > time I was under the impression that all pointers had to have the same > size - the size of a data/code pointer. I see now that this can be done > in standard C. I would deplore any attempt to force all pointers to the > same size. > I think it is more common to have differences in size between code and data pointers, than between different types of data pointers. However, having used processors with Harvard ISAs and separate code and data spaces (as distinct from merely having separate code and data buses as a feature of the implementation), I can say that it is a truly horrible idea that leads to ugly and messy code, as constant data is generally in code space and cannot be accessed in the same way as non-constant data in data space. On microcontrollers with such architectures (as they are invariably small microcontrollers or DSP's), you need to waste precious RAM resources on copies of flash data, or duplicate functions to let you have ram-pointer and flash-pointer versions. It's a mess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff19baae-b3e3-4893-adfe-f5cf9bc179c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63989 |
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 1:58:04 PM UTC-7, David Brown wrote: > On 23/06/15 18:16, David Kleinecke wrote: > > > I fear I started the different sized pointers mess by accident. I > > apologize. > > Usenet threads often grow well beyond our original plans! > > > > > I was led to the issue by considering Harvard-type hardware. Where the > > data and the code are entirely separated. I advocate that kind of > > hardware. Then I observed that most often programs used much more data > > memory than code memory so I wondered whether - in a Harvard-type > > machine - code pointers might not be shorter than data pointers. At that > > time I was under the impression that all pointers had to have the same > > size - the size of a data/code pointer. I see now that this can be done > > in standard C. I would deplore any attempt to force all pointers to the > > same size. > > > > I think it is more common to have differences in size between code and > data pointers, than between different types of data pointers. > > However, having used processors with Harvard ISAs and separate code and > data spaces (as distinct from merely having separate code and data buses > as a feature of the implementation), I can say that it is a truly > horrible idea that leads to ugly and messy code, as constant data is > generally in code space and cannot be accessed in the same way as > non-constant data in data space. On microcontrollers with such > architectures (as they are invariably small microcontrollers or DSP's), > you need to waste precious RAM resources on copies of flash data, or > duplicate functions to let you have ram-pointer and flash-pointer > versions. It's a mess. It sounds to me like Harvard architecture is either not well designed or not well coded. It seems obvious to me that constant data should be in data space. In embedded systems lots of things I don't understand happen and I was imagining a larger machine with Harvard architecture of a sort that does not exist so far as I know. I just think it should exist and it poses some interesting system problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 17:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mmeh45$pse$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64064 |
On 24/06/15 16:52, David Kleinecke wrote: > On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 1:58:04 PM UTC-7, David Brown wrote: >> On 23/06/15 18:16, David Kleinecke wrote: >> >>> I fear I started the different sized pointers mess by accident. I >>> apologize. >> >> Usenet threads often grow well beyond our original plans! >> >>> >>> I was led to the issue by considering Harvard-type hardware. Where the >>> data and the code are entirely separated. I advocate that kind of >>> hardware. Then I observed that most often programs used much more data >>> memory than code memory so I wondered whether - in a Harvard-type >>> machine - code pointers might not be shorter than data pointers. At that >>> time I was under the impression that all pointers had to have the same >>> size - the size of a data/code pointer. I see now that this can be done >>> in standard C. I would deplore any attempt to force all pointers to the >>> same size. >>> >> >> I think it is more common to have differences in size between code and >> data pointers, than between different types of data pointers. >> >> However, having used processors with Harvard ISAs and separate code and >> data spaces (as distinct from merely having separate code and data buses >> as a feature of the implementation), I can say that it is a truly >> horrible idea that leads to ugly and messy code, as constant data is >> generally in code space and cannot be accessed in the same way as >> non-constant data in data space. On microcontrollers with such >> architectures (as they are invariably small microcontrollers or DSP's), >> you need to waste precious RAM resources on copies of flash data, or >> duplicate functions to let you have ram-pointer and flash-pointer >> versions. It's a mess. > > It sounds to me like Harvard architecture is either not well designed > or not well coded. It seems obvious to me that constant data should be > in data space. In embedded systems lots of things I don't understand > happen and I was imagining a larger machine with Harvard architecture > of a sort that does not exist so far as I know. > Harvard architecture means there are separate address spaces for code and data. Often cpus have multiple internal buses, and this is also referred to as Harvard - but it's really just an implementation detail aimed at speeding up the system. As long as you are not doing anything weird like self-modifying code, it is invisible to the programmer. Where Harvard architecture gets relevant is when code and data spaces are separate, and this is exposed in the ISA - typically there are different instructions for accessing the two spaces. On the AVR, loading data from code space uses the "lpm" instruction, while loading data from data space uses the "ld" instruction (or other related instructions). Thus pointers to data in the two spaces must be treated very differently. It makes no real difference to normal code and function pointers, or normal ram variables or pointers to them - but it makes a huge difference when you want to keep constant read-only data alongside the code (in flash on the microcontroller). (It would also make a difference if you wanted to put some code in ram - on the AVR, this is simply not allowed.) You therefore have to have special functions for working with data in flash, or you waste precious ram space by copying constant data from flash into ram, or you use generic pointers that handle the flash/ram instruction difference on pointer access (with corresponding costs in time and code space). > I just think it should exist and it poses some interesting system > problems. > I am just happy that such architectures are becoming less common - I'd rather avoid such problems, even if they are "interesting".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 08:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4797088c-218e-4725-a86d-3763cbaf3319@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64070 |
On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:09:19 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote: > > Harvard architecture means there are separate address spaces for code > and data. Often cpus have multiple internal buses, and this is also > referred to as Harvard - but it's really just an implementation detail > aimed at speeding up the system. As long as you are not doing anything > weird like self-modifying code, it is invisible to the programmer. I don't think C would tolerate self-modifying code. Anyway I agree it should not be done > Where Harvard architecture gets relevant is when code and data spaces > are separate, and this is exposed in the ISA - typically there are > different instructions for accessing the two spaces. On the AVR, > loading data from code space uses the "lpm" instruction, while loading > data from data space uses the "ld" instruction (or other related > instructions). Thus pointers to data in the two spaces must be treated > very differently. It makes no real difference to normal code and > function pointers, or normal ram variables or pointers to them - but it > makes a huge difference when you want to keep constant read-only data > alongside the code (in flash on the microcontroller). (It would also > make a difference if you wanted to put some code in ram - on the AVR, > this is simply not allowed.) > > You therefore have to have special functions for working with data in > flash, or you waste precious ram space by copying constant data from > flash into ram, or you use generic pointers that handle the flash/ram > instruction difference on pointer access (with corresponding costs in > time and code space). > > > I just think it should exist and it poses some interesting system > > problems. > > > I am just happy that such architectures are becoming less common - I'd > rather avoid such problems, even if they are "interesting". I'm doing research - not writing production code and I can afford to look at "interesting" things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 08:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3456acd5-3db8-41ce-b56d-451ddda33b49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64080 |
On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote: > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:09:19 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote: > > Harvard architecture means there are separate address spaces for code > > and data. Often cpus have multiple internal buses, and this is also > > referred to as Harvard - but it's really just an implementation detail > > aimed at speeding up the system. As long as you are not doing anything > > weird like self-modifying code, it is invisible to the programmer. > > I don't think C would tolerate self-modifying code. Anyway I agree > it should not be done C tolerates self-modifying code. But, you have to really know what you're doing. There are also quirks on various architectures which require a protocol to be adhered to. It may require you invalidate the cache, for example. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 23:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mmf5p7$ert$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64081 |
On 24/06/15 17:47, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:09:19 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote: >>> Harvard architecture means there are separate address spaces for code >>> and data. Often cpus have multiple internal buses, and this is also >>> referred to as Harvard - but it's really just an implementation detail >>> aimed at speeding up the system. As long as you are not doing anything >>> weird like self-modifying code, it is invisible to the programmer. >> >> I don't think C would tolerate self-modifying code. Anyway I agree >> it should not be done > > C tolerates self-modifying code. But, you have to really know what > you're doing. There are also quirks on various architectures which > require a protocol to be adhered to. It may require you invalidate > the cache, for example. > That's right. For the sorts of systems I work with, it is not unusual to have to allow some sort of code modification for in-system software updates. Usually you are not updating the code that is running (updates may be done from a dedicated bootloader program, for example), but sometimes it happens. And then you need to know the gritty details of the chip, and how to invalidate caches, synchronise pipelines, etc. Usually that means mostly C code, but with a bit of inline assembly for the ugly stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 17:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <558B1D8C.2030908@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #64099 |
On 06/24/2015 05:01 PM, David Brown wrote: > On 24/06/15 17:47, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: ... >> C tolerates self-modifying code. There is no such thing as C code that has, as it's standard-defined behavior, modification of the code itself. Any C construct that might reasonably have such a consequence necessarily has undefined behavior, which is the worst thing the C standard says about any code construct. If, under those circumstances, you feel willing to say that "C tolerates this", then I defy you to describe something that C doesn't tolerate, and justify the distinction you're making between those two things. > That's right. I must respectfully disagree with you about that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 23:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87twtwvige.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #64101 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > On 06/24/2015 05:01 PM, David Brown wrote: >> On 24/06/15 17:47, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > ... >>> C tolerates self-modifying code. > > There is no such thing as C code that has, as it's standard-defined > behavior, modification of the code itself. Any C construct that might > reasonably have such a consequence necessarily has undefined behavior, > which is the worst thing the C standard says about any code construct. > > If, under those circumstances, you feel willing to say that "C tolerates > this", then I defy you to describe something that C doesn't tolerate, > and justify the distinction you're making between those two things. I don't much like the notion of something that C tolerates (because, as you say, what does C *not* tolerate in that sense?), but amongst all the possible sources of undefined behaviour, modifying code is different, to me, simply because I've found it useful. I've never knowingly made use of indexing off the end of an array, for example, but I've written C code to modify code. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2ff52591a73dab303a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #64102 |
Ben Bacarisse wrote: > James Kuyper writes: > > David Brown wrote: > >> Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > ... > >>> C tolerates self-modifying code. > > > > There is no such thing as C code that has, as it's standard-defined > > behavior, modification of the code itself. Any C construct that might > > reasonably have such a consequence necessarily has undefined behavior, > > which is the worst thing the C standard says about any code construct. > > > > If, under those circumstances, you feel willing to say that "C tolerates > > this", then I defy you to describe something that C doesn't tolerate, > > and justify the distinction you're making between those two things. I agree... C "tolerates" everything, so it's a meaningless thing to say. > I don't much like the notion of something that C tolerates (because, as > you say, what does C *not* tolerate in that sense?), but amongst all the > possible sources of undefined behaviour, modifying code is different, to > me, simply because I've found it useful. I've never knowingly made use > of indexing off the end of an array, for example ... Really? You never used the struct hack (prior to its behavior having been defined)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-25 11:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87oak4ulwf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #64106 |
Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> writes: > Ben Bacarisse wrote: <snip> >> I don't much like the notion of something that C tolerates (because, as >> you say, what does C *not* tolerate in that sense?), but amongst all the >> possible sources of undefined behaviour, modifying code is different, to >> me, simply because I've found it useful. I've never knowingly made use >> of indexing off the end of an array, for example ... > > Really? You never used the struct hack (prior to its behavior having > been defined)? Not that I recall, no.[1] But you are almost certainly right that I've overstated the case. I bet I have used some other undefined hack at some point, but the code modification stands out in my mind. Mind you, a lot of my experience with C predates the first standard, and in those days there was a tendency to program in the language provided by the implementation rather than writing to some formal definition of what would work everywhere -- you wrote FORTRAN 66 if you wanted to be portable. In pre-ANSI days there was a much loser sense of what was defined and what was not defined. [1] I'm discounting toy programs written for that very purpose. You can probably find code I've written and posted here to show how it's done -- counting that would be odd! -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-25 11:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmglgt$289$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64112 |
On 25/06/15 11:23, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> writes:
>
>> You never used the struct hack (prior to its behavior having
>> been defined)?
>
> Not that I recall, no.[1]
^^^
That array won't be particularly useful unless you /do/ use the struct
hack...
...is that my coat?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-25 11:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87fv5guke8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #64114 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 25/06/15 11:23, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> writes: >> >>> You never used the struct hack (prior to its behavior having >>> been defined)? >> >> Not that I recall, no.[1] > ^^^ > > That array won't be particularly useful unless you /do/ use the struct > hack... You'd think so, but I've seen real uses of arrays of length one (if that was what your joke was based on rather than the bad "no.[1]" syntax). In one case (was it GMP?), a typedef: typedef a_real_thing_probably_a_struct a_thing[1]; was used to that you could declare and initialise a thing, but it will always be passed using it's address. That's the sort of C thing that makes programmers say... > ...is that my coat? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-25 00:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mmfbsu$ap8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64101 |
On 24/06/15 23:13, James Kuyper wrote: > On 06/24/2015 05:01 PM, David Brown wrote: >> On 24/06/15 17:47, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > ... >>> C tolerates self-modifying code. > > There is no such thing as C code that has, as it's standard-defined > behavior, modification of the code itself. Any C construct that might > reasonably have such a consequence necessarily has undefined behavior, > which is the worst thing the C standard says about any code construct. > > If, under those circumstances, you feel willing to say that "C tolerates > this", then I defy you to describe something that C doesn't tolerate, > and justify the distinction you're making between those two things. > >> That's right. > > I must respectfully disagree with you about that. > You snipped all the relevant parts of what Rick wrote, and what I agreed to. The C standards don't say anything about modification of the code itself. But you can write code in C (or at least, mostly in C - you may need a little assembler too) that modifies the code in your system. You must do so carefully, with a knowledge of the system (at a level lower than C), but you can do it. Arguably, the link-loader in your OS that reads files from the disk, patches links, and starts the code is modifying code. And such a link-loader is typically written mostly in C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-25 01:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150625014725.4dc5f9e1@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #64103 |
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:46:07 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 24/06/15 23:13, James Kuyper wrote: > > On 06/24/2015 05:01 PM, David Brown wrote: > >> On 24/06/15 17:47, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > ... > >>> C tolerates self-modifying code. > > > > There is no such thing as C code that has, as it's standard-defined > > behavior, modification of the code itself. Any C construct that > > might reasonably have such a consequence necessarily has undefined > > behavior, which is the worst thing the C standard says about any > > code construct. > > > > If, under those circumstances, you feel willing to say that "C > > tolerates this", then I defy you to describe something that C > > doesn't tolerate, and justify the distinction you're making between > > those two things. > > > >> That's right. > > > > I must respectfully disagree with you about that. > > > > You snipped all the relevant parts of what Rick wrote, and what I > agreed to. > > The C standards don't say anything about modification of the code > itself. But you can write code in C (or at least, mostly in C - you > may need a little assembler too) that modifies the code in your > system. You must do so carefully, with a knowledge of the system (at > a level lower than C), but you can do it. > > Arguably, the link-loader in your OS that reads files from the disk, > patches links, and starts the code is modifying code. And such a > link-loader is typically written mostly in C. > What about JIT compilers? Can they be written in C? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-25 05:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f187bed0-afc2-4176-aff8-7ed2d49e8b02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64104 |
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 7:47:32 PM UTC-4, Melzzzzz wrote: > > > On 06/24/2015 05:01 PM, David Brown wrote: > > >>> On 24/06/15 17:47, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > >>> C tolerates self-modifying code. > > > There is no such thing as C code that has, as it's standard-defined > > > behavior, modification of the code itself. Any C construct that > > > might reasonably have such a consequence necessarily has undefined > > > behavior, which is the worst thing the C standard says about any > > > code construct. > > > ... > > What about JIT compilers? Can they be written in C? ;) :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 20:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <558B4A4B.8000509@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #64103 |
On 06/24/2015 06:46 PM, David Brown wrote: > On 24/06/15 23:13, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 06/24/2015 05:01 PM, David Brown wrote: >>> On 24/06/15 17:47, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> ... >>>> C tolerates self-modifying code. >> >> There is no such thing as C code that has, as it's standard-defined >> behavior, modification of the code itself. Any C construct that might >> reasonably have such a consequence necessarily has undefined behavior, >> which is the worst thing the C standard says about any code construct. >> >> If, under those circumstances, you feel willing to say that "C tolerates >> this", then I defy you to describe something that C doesn't tolerate, >> and justify the distinction you're making between those two things. >> >>> That's right. >> >> I must respectfully disagree with you about that. >> > > You snipped all the relevant parts of what Rick wrote, and what I agreed to. I snipped all the parts of what Rick said that weren't directly related to my point; I didn't realize that that only part I kept was one of the things you weren't agreeing with. In context, I presumed that "That's right" applied to the entire quoted paragraph that preceded it. If you only were agreeing to part of that paragraph, it would have been better to clarify that fact. > The C standards don't say anything about modification of the code > itself. But you can write code in C (or at least, mostly in C - you may > need a little assembler too) that modifies the code in your system. You > must do so carefully, with a knowledge of the system (at a level lower > than C), but you can do it. > > Arguably, the link-loader in your OS that reads files from the disk, > patches links, and starts the code is modifying code. And such a > link-loader is typically written mostly in C. He was talking about self-modifying code, and none of those are examples. However, I will agree that loading a program into memory and starting it running is also outside the scope of the C standard, and it is therefore "tolerated" in precisely the same sense that self-modifying code is - by a complete lack of relevant text anywhere in the C standard. You could say the same thing about water skiing or the Evangelical church - C "tolerates" those, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-25 10:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mmgcc3$41e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64105 |
On 25/06/15 02:24, James Kuyper wrote: > On 06/24/2015 06:46 PM, David Brown wrote: >> On 24/06/15 23:13, James Kuyper wrote: >>> On 06/24/2015 05:01 PM, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 24/06/15 17:47, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> ... >>>>> C tolerates self-modifying code. >>> >>> There is no such thing as C code that has, as it's standard-defined >>> behavior, modification of the code itself. Any C construct that might >>> reasonably have such a consequence necessarily has undefined behavior, >>> which is the worst thing the C standard says about any code construct. >>> >>> If, under those circumstances, you feel willing to say that "C tolerates >>> this", then I defy you to describe something that C doesn't tolerate, >>> and justify the distinction you're making between those two things. >>> >>>> That's right. >>> >>> I must respectfully disagree with you about that. >>> >> >> You snipped all the relevant parts of what Rick wrote, and what I agreed to. > > I snipped all the parts of what Rick said that weren't directly related > to my point; I didn't realize that that only part I kept was one of the > things you weren't agreeing with. In context, I presumed that "That's > right" applied to the entire quoted paragraph that preceded it. If you > only were agreeing to part of that paragraph, it would have been better > to clarify that fact. I had glossed over the "C tolerates self-modifying code" part as being a fairly meaningless comment - as you say, C is pretty tolerant. So I was really adding to Rick's comments about having to know what you are doing with such things. I'll agree that I was not particularly clear or detailed in how I wrote my post - I hadn't expected it to cause confusion. > >> The C standards don't say anything about modification of the code >> itself. But you can write code in C (or at least, mostly in C - you may >> need a little assembler too) that modifies the code in your system. You >> must do so carefully, with a knowledge of the system (at a level lower >> than C), but you can do it. >> >> Arguably, the link-loader in your OS that reads files from the disk, >> patches links, and starts the code is modifying code. And such a >> link-loader is typically written mostly in C. > > He was talking about self-modifying code, and none of those are > examples. However, I will agree that loading a program into memory and > starting it running is also outside the scope of the C standard, and it > is therefore "tolerated" in precisely the same sense that self-modifying > code is - by a complete lack of relevant text anywhere in the C > standard. You could say the same thing about water skiing or the > Evangelical church - C "tolerates" those, too. > Agreed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web