Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60841 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 432 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 10:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:25 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:35 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 07:52 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:15 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:44 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-24 13:01 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 04:16 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-24 04:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 16:07 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-25 22:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 14:29 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-26 15:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:43 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-04-23 09:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:03 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:53 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:37 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:12 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:46 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 08:47 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Fred K <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 07:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 16:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 01:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 10:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 18:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 23:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 08:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-26 12:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-28 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-09 13:14 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 08:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-10 12:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-05-10 13:22 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 18:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 11:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 08:24 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 21:15 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 19:40 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-13 21:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 23:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-14 00:19 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 04:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 04:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-14 11:34 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:24 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-17 10:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 13:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 09:51 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 05:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 01:31 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-13 21:05 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 00:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 02:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 05:02 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-15 13:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-16 02:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:13 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:36 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 12:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 14:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 13:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 14:20 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:51 +0100
I'm starting a new thread (Was: Spurious diagnostic messages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 11:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 18:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 00:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-21 12:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 13:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-22 09:11 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:15 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 12:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:26 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 14:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 09:28 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-22 21:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:36 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 14:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:38 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 18:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 23:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-22 18:28 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 16:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 16:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 00:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 23:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:10 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:42 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 20:25 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 07:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 18:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages "Bartc" <bartc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-01 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 11:48 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 18:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 13:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 21:07 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 23:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 15:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-24 22:45 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-25 18:59 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-25 20:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-31 13:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-25 12:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:11 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 11:26 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-26 22:02 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-26 14:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 16:58 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-26 16:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 08:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 20:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 08:47 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 20:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 16:54 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-31 01:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 06:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 16:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:36 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-31 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-01 08:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:08 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:15 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:24 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-30 13:30 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:12 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:36 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 18:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-26 11:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-26 15:35 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 00:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 00:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 13:43 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 00:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:16 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 12:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:42 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 09:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-24 22:22 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-01 20:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 18:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 14:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tonton Th <tTh@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-08-01 22:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-02 09:02 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 14:23 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 12:10 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:01 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:16 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-03 14:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 10:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 16:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 12:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 13:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 13:37 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 13:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:34 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 11:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 10:47 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:33 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 10:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-06 22:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:44 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 10:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 13:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 14:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-20 21:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:17 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:15 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 11:46 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-23 17:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:49 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 15:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 22:51 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-23 22:50 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-23 23:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 00:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 02:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 07:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 14:24 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 09:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 15:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-24 13:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 19:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-25 00:51 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 02:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 13:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 15:55 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 18:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-29 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-26 13:27 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 21:09 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 00:03 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 00:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 01:15 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 13:34 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 14:07 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 21:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-28 17:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 10:36 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 16:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 16:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:39 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 22:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 21:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-10 18:08 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-11 15:02 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 14:08 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-21 13:27 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 15:30 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 10:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 14:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 20:16 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 09:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 22:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 10:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-28 06:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 10:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 10:32 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 17:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-28 15:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 15:03 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-28 14:35 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 16:54 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-29 10:17 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 10:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 21:16 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 20:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 02:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-28 03:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 22:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 22:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:52 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 12:11 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 10:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 14:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 22:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 17:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:34 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 14:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> - 2015-05-29 15:28 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-29 15:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 16:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-17 15:46 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 11:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-18 08:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:09 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:03 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 14:41 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:39 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 13:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 19:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-14 09:54 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-14 08:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-14 14:37 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-15 16:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:44 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 06:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> - 2015-04-29 04:07 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 09:33 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700
Page 1 of 22 [1] 2 3 … 22 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Spurious diagnostic messages |
| Message-ID | <mha5pl$vtt$1@dont-email.me> |
In rec.puzzles, I was reading that the probability of hitting any square on a sufficiently large board converges to 1/7th (assuming you're rolling two fair six-sided dice to determine your progress along the board). It was sufficiently early in the morning that this rather bland assertion struck me as being curious, and I resolved (in my sleepy way) to test it. So I spent five contented and rather sleepy minutes writing a C program to confirm the obvious fact that the average 2D6 roll is 7 by playing a million games of "no snakes or ladders" on a rather large board and seeing how often each square got landed on. Having just devoted two whole paragraphs to explaining why this had nothing whatsoever to do with spurious diagnostics (nothing could have been further from my mind), I will now show you the diagnostics, all of which I consider spurious: simboard.c:5:5: warning: no previous prototype for ‘die’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] The line under consideration was: int die(int sides) which *IS* a prototype! The compiler is telling me that this is the first prototype it's seen for this function. What am I supposed to do with that information - alert the media? On the other hand, do I want to suppress this message? Heck no. If I actually /use/ a function without a prototype, I want the compiler to tell me. Can I improve the code to remove the warning? Well, experimentation shows that I could write: int foo(int); int foo(int x) every time, but I'm not convinced that this is "improved". It's just one more maintenance chore. simboard.c: In function ‘die’: simboard.c:7:3: warning: conversion to ‘int’ from ‘double’ may alter its value [-Wconversion] Here's the line: return 1 + sides * (rand() / (RAND_MAX + 1.0)); This is very much along the lines of the hypothetical "adding two unsigned integers may result in a value lower than either operand", which was thought to be so ridiculous in a recent thread. This line is idiomatic, and there is no need whatsoever to change it. simboard.c: At top level: simboard.c:10:8: warning: no previous prototype for ‘mean’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] simboard.c:21:8: warning: no previous prototype for ‘stddev’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] simboard.c:34:6: warning: no previous prototype for ‘minimaxi’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] All of these are "gosh, this is the first time I've seen this prototype" messages. simboard.c: In function ‘minimaxi’: simboard.c:38:3: warning: negative integer implicitly converted to unsigned type [-Wsign-conversion] I have a pointer to an unsigned long, which I wish to set to the lowest value in a range of data. Here's the setup line before the loop: *low = -1; Unsigned integer arithmetic *guarantees* that this will assign to *low the largest possible unsigned long value. (Of course, the idea is that, in the loop, it will be reset to any lower value encountered.) The warning is 100% correct. Do I want to turn it off? No, because I'd like to know whether I'm doing that sort of thing accidentally. But do I want to change the code? No. The code as written is perfectly clear, and needs no rewriting. A cast would be pointless obscurantism. simboard.c: In function ‘main’: simboard.c:79:19: warning: conversion to ‘size_t’ from ‘int’ may change the sign of the result [-Wsign-conversion] simboard.c:80:19: warning: conversion to ‘size_t’ from ‘int’ may change the sign of the result [-Wsign-conversion] Perfectly true, except that it won't. Here are the lines: score += die(6); score += die(6); The score object is indeed an unsigned type, but it's set to 0 inside the loop where it's used, and then we add a couple of values in the range 1 to 6 to it, so the biggest value it's going to reach is 12000 or so (because that's how big the board is), so it can't ever wrap. Do I want to suppress the warning? No, I'd like to be told about such issues. Does the warning indicate an actual problem with this code? No. Should I change the code to remove the warning? This is perhaps the closest candidate for a change in the whole program, but even then I'm very much in two minds about it. The obvious candidates for change are: 1) change score to a signed type - but it's used as an index into an array, so that's not so bright an idea 2) change die so that it returns an unsigned type - better, but what if I had dice marked up with -3 to +2, say? The unsigned type then becomes an unspoken assumption. I'm not really happy with either of these possibilities. I know! I'll switch back to using Windows, and Visual Studio. That way, the only warning I'll have to worry about is that // comment in the math.h header. -- 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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 10:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mhac1u$kms$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60841 |
Hello Richard, On 23/04/2015 09:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: > simboard.c:5:5: warning: no previous prototype for ‘die’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] > > The line under consideration was: > > int die(int sides) > > which *IS* a prototype! The compiler is telling me that this is the > first prototype it's seen for this function. What am I supposed to do > with that information - alert the media? > > On the other hand, do I want to suppress this message? Heck no. If I > actually /use/ a function without a prototype, I want the compiler to > tell me. > > Can I improve the code to remove the warning? Well, experimentation > shows that I could write: > > int foo(int); > int foo(int x) > > every time, but I'm not convinced that this is "improved". It's just one more maintenance chore. You didn't specify compiler, version, and compilation options. (I'm using gcc 4.8.2) First of all, please note that -Wmissing-prototypes is neither in -Wall nor in -Wextra (it has to be explicitly requested). https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wmissing-prototypes-548 > Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype > declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself > provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that > do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file. I think the intent is clear: - either the function is local, then it must be static - or it is global, then you declare it in the appropriate header The warning will not trigger for static functions. Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 21:13 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <cprrdsF6f3iU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60850 |
Noob wrote: > Hello Richard, > > On 23/04/2015 09:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype >> declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself >> provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that >> do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file. > > I think the intent is clear: > - either the function is local, then it must be static > - or it is global, then you declare it in the appropriate header Nit-pick time! By the time the compiler can diagnose this condition, the preprocessor will have done its thing with include files. Therefore there there is no way for it to tell whether a prototype is local or in a header. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 11:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mhadoe$r09$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60851 |
Ian Collins wrote: > Noob wrote: >> Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >>> Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype >>> declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself >>> provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that >>> do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file. >> >> I think the intent is clear: >> - either the function is local, then it must be static >> - or it is global, then you declare it in the appropriate header > > Nit-pick time! > > By the time the compiler can diagnose this condition, the > preprocessor will have done its thing with include files. Therefore > there there is no way for it to tell whether a prototype is local or > in a header. I don't understand your remark. If a given function is only intended to be used in the current translation unit, then it should be static. If it is not static, then it is intended to be called from other translation units, and a prototype should be provided in the appropriate header. Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 10:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhaed9$sca$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60852 |
On 23/04/15 10:25, Noob wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> Noob wrote:
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype
>>>> declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself
>>>> provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that
>>>> do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file.
>>>
>>> I think the intent is clear:
>>> - either the function is local, then it must be static
>>> - or it is global, then you declare it in the appropriate header
>>
>> Nit-pick time!
>>
>> By the time the compiler can diagnose this condition, the
>> preprocessor will have done its thing with include files. Therefore
>> there there is no way for it to tell whether a prototype is local or
>> in a header.
>
> I don't understand your remark.
>
> If a given function is only intended to be used in the current
> translation unit, then it should be static.
>
> If it is not static, then it is intended to be called from other
> translation units, and a prototype should be provided in the
> appropriate header.
What Ian is saying is that the compiler cannot know whether a function
prototype appears in an appropriate header. And in fact, it not only
can't, but doesn't.
int foo(int);
int foo(int x)
{
return x/2;
}
doesn't trigger the diagnostic message, even though the first prototype
is in the source, not a header.
--
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 | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 11:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mhafe5$190$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60855 |
On 23/04/2015 11:36, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 23/04/15 10:25, Noob wrote:
>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>> Noob wrote:
>>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype
>>>>> declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself
>>>>> provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that
>>>>> do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file.
>>>>
>>>> I think the intent is clear:
>>>> - either the function is local, then it must be static
>>>> - or it is global, then you declare it in the appropriate header
>>>
>>> Nit-pick time!
>>>
>>> By the time the compiler can diagnose this condition, the
>>> preprocessor will have done its thing with include files. Therefore
>>> there there is no way for it to tell whether a prototype is local or
>>> in a header.
>>
>> I don't understand your remark.
>>
>> If a given function is only intended to be used in the current
>> translation unit, then it should be static.
>>
>> If it is not static, then it is intended to be called from other
>> translation units, and a prototype should be provided in the
>> appropriate header.
>
> What Ian is saying is that the compiler cannot know whether a
> function prototype appears in an appropriate header. And in fact, it
> not only can't, but doesn't.
>
> int foo(int);
> int foo(int x)
> {
> return x/2;
> }
>
> doesn't trigger the diagnostic message, even though the first prototype is in the source, not a header.
As Kenny points out, the warning is used to diagnose /missing/
declarations. If you want to silence the warning by providing a
declaration within the source, have a blast. (Or simply don't
request the warning on the command line!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 11:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhag5b$3l9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60858 |
On 23/04/15 10:54, Noob wrote:
> On 23/04/2015 11:36, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 23/04/15 10:25, Noob wrote:
>>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> Noob wrote:
>>>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype
>>>>>> declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself
>>>>>> provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that
>>>>>> do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the intent is clear:
>>>>> - either the function is local, then it must be static
>>>>> - or it is global, then you declare it in the appropriate header
>>>>
>>>> Nit-pick time!
>>>>
>>>> By the time the compiler can diagnose this condition, the
>>>> preprocessor will have done its thing with include files. Therefore
>>>> there there is no way for it to tell whether a prototype is local or
>>>> in a header.
>>>
>>> I don't understand your remark.
>>>
>>> If a given function is only intended to be used in the current
>>> translation unit, then it should be static.
>>>
>>> If it is not static, then it is intended to be called from other
>>> translation units, and a prototype should be provided in the
>>> appropriate header.
>>
>> What Ian is saying is that the compiler cannot know whether a
>> function prototype appears in an appropriate header. And in fact, it
>> not only can't, but doesn't.
>>
>> int foo(int);
>> int foo(int x)
>> {
>> return x/2;
>> }
>>
>> doesn't trigger the diagnostic message, even though the first prototype is in the source, not a header.
>
> As Kenny points out, the warning is used to diagnose /missing/
> declarations. If you want to silence the warning by providing a
> declaration within the source, have a blast. (Or simply don't
> request the warning on the command line!)
Firstly, the nitpick was about the inaccurate claim in the documentation
for the diagnostic message.
Secondly, obviously I don't want to silence the warning like that. It's
clearly a daft warning, so I've removed it from the Makefile. To check
that genuine prototype problems are still diagnosed, I moved a function
from top to bottom, and got a warning about an implicit declaration.
That's fine - that's what I want.
Unfortunately, removing the -Wmissing-prototypes warning from the
Makefile did not reduce my diagnostic count, because now I'm getting
precisely the same message text from -Wmissing-declarations, which seems
to suffer from the same problem as -Wmissing-prototypes in that it is
completely and utterly useless (yes, I checked the docs carefully this
time to ensure that I knew what the gcc team claims for the warning).
So that's another warning that I can trim from the Makefile generator.
(Done.)
Unfortunately, I don't think I can do anything about -Wconversion or
-Wsign-conversion. I do actually need those.
--
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 | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 12:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mhahqq$91f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60860 |
On 23/04/2015 12:06, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 23/04/15 10:54, Noob wrote:
>> On 23/04/2015 11:36, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 23/04/15 10:25, Noob wrote:
>>>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>>>> Noob wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype
>>>>>>> declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself
>>>>>>> provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that
>>>>>>> do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the intent is clear:
>>>>>> - either the function is local, then it must be static
>>>>>> - or it is global, then you declare it in the appropriate header
>>>>>
>>>>> Nit-pick time!
>>>>>
>>>>> By the time the compiler can diagnose this condition, the
>>>>> preprocessor will have done its thing with include files. Therefore
>>>>> there there is no way for it to tell whether a prototype is local or
>>>>> in a header.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand your remark.
>>>>
>>>> If a given function is only intended to be used in the current
>>>> translation unit, then it should be static.
>>>>
>>>> If it is not static, then it is intended to be called from other
>>>> translation units, and a prototype should be provided in the
>>>> appropriate header.
>>>
>>> What Ian is saying is that the compiler cannot know whether a
>>> function prototype appears in an appropriate header. And in fact, it
>>> not only can't, but doesn't.
>>>
>>> int foo(int);
>>> int foo(int x)
>>> {
>>> return x/2;
>>> }
>>>
>>> doesn't trigger the diagnostic message, even though the first prototype is in the source, not a header.
>>
>> As Kenny points out, the warning is used to diagnose /missing/
>> declarations. If you want to silence the warning by providing a
>> declaration within the source, have a blast. (Or simply don't
>> request the warning on the command line!)
>
> Firstly, the nitpick was about the inaccurate claim in the documentation
> for the diagnostic message.
I see it now. Makes sense.
> Secondly, obviously I don't want to silence the warning like that. It's
> clearly a daft warning, so I've removed it from the Makefile. To check
> that genuine prototype problems are still diagnosed, I moved a function
> from top to bottom, and got a warning about an implicit declaration.
> That's fine - that's what I want.
I must be missing something obvious, because I don't see where
-Wmissing-prototypes would trigger spurious warnings.
static functions are ignored, and non-static functions should
be declared in an included header.
> Unfortunately, removing the -Wmissing-prototypes warning from the
> Makefile did not reduce my diagnostic count, because now I'm getting
> precisely the same message text from -Wmissing-declarations, which seems
> to suffer from the same problem as -Wmissing-prototypes in that it is
> completely and utterly useless (yes, I checked the docs carefully this
> time to ensure that I knew what the gcc team claims for the warning).
I read the description for -Wmissing-declarations several times
and still don't understand it.
> Unfortunately, I don't think I can do anything about -Wconversion or
> -Wsign-conversion. I do actually need those.
I'll have to look at those more closely, but warning that converting
from double to int may produce weird results seems reasonable?
Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 11:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhaicg$bci$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60861 |
On 23/04/15 11:35, Noob wrote:
<snip>
> I must be missing something obvious, because I don't see where
> -Wmissing-prototypes would trigger spurious warnings.
>
> static functions are ignored, and non-static functions should
> be declared in an included header.
So to deal with the warning, we have to make functions static even in a
single-module C source, where they are rather pointless. I think I'd
rather lose the warning.
>> Unfortunately, removing the -Wmissing-prototypes warning from the
>> Makefile did not reduce my diagnostic count, because now I'm getting
>> precisely the same message text from -Wmissing-declarations, which seems
>> to suffer from the same problem as -Wmissing-prototypes in that it is
>> completely and utterly useless (yes, I checked the docs carefully this
>> time to ensure that I knew what the gcc team claims for the warning).
>
> I read the description for -Wmissing-declarations several times
> and still don't understand it.
I think I do. If you have this code:
#include <stdio.h>
unsigned long seed;
unsigned long prng(void)
{
++seed;
seed *= 0x87654321;
return seed >> 7; /* don't use this at home, folks! */
}
int main(void)
{
printf("%lu\n", prng());
return 0;
}
-Wmissing-declarations would warn for seed, because there is no
declaration preceding its definition. It would also warn for prng(),
because there is no declaration (a function declaration in this case)
preceding its definition.
Fix 1: write a header in which unsigned long seed is declared extern,
and in which prng is prototyped;
Fix 2: make them static;
Fix 3: don't use that warning.
I think I'll go for Fix 3.
>
>> Unfortunately, I don't think I can do anything about -Wconversion or
>> -Wsign-conversion. I do actually need those.
>
> I'll have to look at those more closely, but warning that converting
> from double to int may produce weird results seems reasonable?
Yes, it is indeed reasonable to warn about that, but it is also
reasonable to read the warning, decide that in this case it doesn't
apply, comment the code accordingly, and leave it at that.
--
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 | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 12:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mhaj31$dqk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60864 |
On 23/04/2015 12:44, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 23/04/15 11:35, Noob wrote: > >> I must be missing something obvious, because I don't see where >> -Wmissing-prototypes would trigger spurious warnings. >> >> static functions are ignored, and non-static functions should >> be declared in an included header. > > So to deal with the warning, we have to make functions static even > in a single-module C source, where they are rather pointless. Disagree. 'static' tells the compiler: "there are no other users of this function, apart from those you see here". Helps the compiler with inlining decisions. Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhak98$ibs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60867 |
On 23/04/15 11:56, Noob wrote: > On 23/04/2015 12:44, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> On 23/04/15 11:35, Noob wrote: >> >>> I must be missing something obvious, because I don't see where >>> -Wmissing-prototypes would trigger spurious warnings. >>> >>> static functions are ignored, and non-static functions should >>> be declared in an included header. >> >> So to deal with the warning, we have to make functions static even >> in a single-module C source, where they are rather pointless. > > Disagree. 'static' tells the compiler: "there are no other > users of this function, apart from those you see here". > Helps the compiler with inlining decisions. That smacks of premature optimisation. I realise some people do write code that's right on the ragged edge and they need to squeeze every last millicycle out of their source, but I would venture to suggest that for most programmers this is probably not actually essential. Their bottlenecks will generally lie elsewhere. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87oameirv9.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60867 |
Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes:
> On 23/04/2015 12:44, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 23/04/15 11:35, Noob wrote:
>>> I must be missing something obvious, because I don't see where
>>> -Wmissing-prototypes would trigger spurious warnings.
>>>
>>> static functions are ignored, and non-static functions should
>>> be declared in an included header.
>>
>> So to deal with the warning, we have to make functions static even
>> in a single-module C source, where they are rather pointless.
>
> Disagree. 'static' tells the compiler: "there are no other
> users of this function, apart from those you see here".
> Helps the compiler with inlining decisions.
More important, it means that the name isn't exported, so it won't
interfere with uses of the same identifier in other source files.
In my opinion, this is a case where C gets the default wrong. If you
define an object or function at file scope, it should not be exported
(made visible via the linker to other translation units) unless you
explicitly ask for that. My preferred workaround is to use "static"
for file-scope definitions unless I specifically want them to have
external linkage.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 07:52 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <cpt0snF6f3iU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60867 |
Noob wrote: > On 23/04/2015 12:44, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> On 23/04/15 11:35, Noob wrote: >> >>> I must be missing something obvious, because I don't see where >>> -Wmissing-prototypes would trigger spurious warnings. >>> >>> static functions are ignored, and non-static functions should >>> be declared in an included header. >> >> So to deal with the warning, we have to make functions static even >> in a single-module C source, where they are rather pointless. > > Disagree. 'static' tells the compiler: "there are no other > users of this function, apart from those you see here". > Helps the compiler with inlining decisions. How? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 16:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <553952E5.808@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #60938 |
On 04/23/2015 03:52 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > Noob wrote: ... >> Disagree. 'static' tells the compiler: "there are no other >> users of this function, apart from those you see here". >> Helps the compiler with inlining decisions. > > How? If a function is NOT declared static, then actual code for that function must be generated, just in case it gets called from some other translation unit. Since an actual function body must be created anyway, that provides a disincentive for inlining. The function can still be inlined - but in marginal cases the existence of an actual function body means it isn't worthwhile to inline it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 08:21 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <cpt2iqF6f3iU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60944 |
James Kuyper wrote: > On 04/23/2015 03:52 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> Noob wrote: > .... >>> Disagree. 'static' tells the compiler: "there are no other >>> users of this function, apart from those you see here". >>> Helps the compiler with inlining decisions. >> >> How? > > If a function is NOT declared static, then actual code for that function > must be generated, just in case it gets called from some other > translation unit. Since an actual function body must be created anyway, > that provides a disincentive for inlining. The function can still be > inlined - but in marginal cases the existence of an actual function body > means it isn't worthwhile to inline it. Yes the code for the function body must be emitted, but that shouldn't have any influence on whether it actually gets inlined. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 16:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <553959A3.3000902@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #60945 |
On 04/23/2015 04:21 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > James Kuyper wrote: >> On 04/23/2015 03:52 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> Noob wrote: >> .... >>>> Disagree. 'static' tells the compiler: "there are no other >>>> users of this function, apart from those you see here". >>>> Helps the compiler with inlining decisions. >>> >>> How? >> >> If a function is NOT declared static, then actual code for that function >> must be generated, just in case it gets called from some other >> translation unit. Since an actual function body must be created anyway, >> that provides a disincentive for inlining. The function can still be >> inlined - but in marginal cases the existence of an actual function body >> means it isn't worthwhile to inline it. > > Yes the code for the function body must be emitted, but that shouldn't > have any influence on whether it actually gets inlined. Why not? Inlining is a space/time tradeoff. Let's consider the extreme case where there's only one call to the function. If it's static, it's almost trivially the case that the call should be inlined, pretty much regardless of how big it is or how long it takes to execute, no matter how small of an advantage it gains from being inlined (so long as it actually is an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, and I believe that this is the usual case). However, if the function has external linkage, and an actual function body must therefore be created anyway, just in case it does get called externally, then whether or not it makes sense to inline the function rather than calling the actual function depends upon all of those things. For a sufficiently big function that takes a sufficiently long amount of time to execute, if the time saved by inlining it is sufficiently small, and if the space required by the inline version of the code is sufficiently close to the size of the real function, I'd expect a decent optimizer to favor saving space rather than time, by calling the real function rather than inlining it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 13:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mhd7p3$b6k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60947 |
On 23/04/15 22:44, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 04/23/2015 04:21 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 04/23/2015 03:52 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> Noob wrote:
>>> ....
>>>>> Disagree. 'static' tells the compiler: "there are no other
>>>>> users of this function, apart from those you see here".
>>>>> Helps the compiler with inlining decisions.
>>>>
>>>> How?
>>>
>>> If a function is NOT declared static, then actual code for that function
>>> must be generated, just in case it gets called from some other
>>> translation unit. Since an actual function body must be created anyway,
>>> that provides a disincentive for inlining. The function can still be
>>> inlined - but in marginal cases the existence of an actual function body
>>> means it isn't worthwhile to inline it.
>>
>> Yes the code for the function body must be emitted, but that shouldn't
>> have any influence on whether it actually gets inlined.
>
> Why not? Inlining is a space/time tradeoff. Let's consider the extreme
> case where there's only one call to the function. If it's static, it's
> almost trivially the case that the call should be inlined, pretty much
> regardless of how big it is or how long it takes to execute, no matter
> how small of an advantage it gains from being inlined (so long as it
> actually is an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, and I believe that
> this is the usual case).
The only exception to this would be if the compiler used likely/unlikely
paths to rearrange hot and cold sections of code to optimise cache hits.
(Or one might disable inlining of single-use functions for debugging
convenience.)
>
> However, if the function has external linkage, and an actual function
> body must therefore be created anyway, just in case it does get called
> externally, then whether or not it makes sense to inline the function
> rather than calling the actual function depends upon all of those
> things. For a sufficiently big function that takes a sufficiently long
> amount of time to execute, if the time saved by inlining it is
> sufficiently small, and if the space required by the inline version of
> the code is sufficiently close to the size of the real function, I'd
> expect a decent optimizer to favor saving space rather than time, by
> calling the real function rather than inlining it.
>
In particular, it is very common in smaller embedded systems to use
"optimise for space" optimisations ("-Os" in gcc terms), where you want
fast code but have a bit more emphasis on space. A compiler should then
not inline a function that it has generated in its entirety (due to
external linkage), unless inlining leads to smaller code overall,
perhaps due to extra constant propagation optimisations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 04:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56646d12-242b-4148-b28a-5b71ecbf0b99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60864 |
On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 11:44:42 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 23/04/15 11:35, Noob wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I must be missing something obvious, because I don't see where
> > -Wmissing-prototypes would trigger spurious warnings.
> >
> > static functions are ignored, and non-static functions should
> > be declared in an included header.
>
> So to deal with the warning, we have to make functions static even in a
> single-module C source, where they are rather pointless. I think I'd
> rather lose the warning.
The documentation clearly describes the intended use of this warning - and single-module C source is evidently not that. You *deliberately* and *specifically* turned on a particular warning that is *singularly, clearly and explicitly* not intended for a single source module and feel the need to point that fact out.
"Use this option to detect global functions
that do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file."
Very, very lame, Richard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 12:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhakf4$itg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60868 |
On 23/04/15 12:16, gwowen wrote: > On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 11:44:42 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 23/04/15 11:35, Noob wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> > I must be missing something obvious, because I don't see where >> > -Wmissing-prototypes would trigger spurious warnings. >> > >> > static functions are ignored, and non-static functions should >> > be declared in an included header. >> >> So to deal with the warning, we have to make functions static even in a >> single-module C source, where they are rather pointless. I think I'd >> rather lose the warning. > > The documentation clearly describes the intended use of this warning - and single-module C source is evidently not that. You *deliberately* and *specifically* turned on a particular warning that is *singularly, clearly and explicitly* not intended for a single source module and feel the need to point that fact out. > > "Use this option to detect global functions > that do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file." > > Very, very lame, Richard. I'm afraid it's even lamer than you think. Cargo cult warnings. I hadn't even /read/ the documentation. -- 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 | Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 04:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lNqdnRQ3K4-ksafInZ2dnUVZ572dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #60864 |
On 4/23/2015 3:44 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> #include <stdio.h>
> unsigned long seed;
> unsigned long prng(void)
> {
> ++seed;
> seed *= 0x87654321;
> return seed >> 7; /* don't use this at home, folks! */
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
> printf("%lu\n", prng());
> return 0;
> }
>
> -Wmissing-declarations would warn for seed, because there
> is no declaration preceding its definition.
Actually, it doesn't. Global variables don't need to be declared
before they're defined in the same compilation unit. The only
places a non-definition declaration is required is if they're
accessed in *other* compilation units; those src files would need:
extern unsigned long seed;
That tells the linker to look for the file in which that
variable is defined, and link to that.
But putting that declaration in the src file that defines the
variable is not only unnecessary but causes confusion and
possibility of errors. I used to maintain a large software
project using MANY *.c and *.h files and a large number of global
variables. (Not my doing, I swear.) To help unscramble that mess,
I moved all the global variables to one file only: "globals.h".
Every *.c file #include'd that file. The file went like this:
#ifndef GLOBALS_H
#define GLOBALS_H
#ifdef MAIN_C
#define EXTERN
#define INIT = 0
#else
#define EXTERN extern
#define INIT
#endif
EXTERN long int Aardvark INIT ;
EXTERN double Baklava INIT ;
EXTERN unsigned long Crunchy INIT ;
EXTERN char Delta[52] ;
/* hundreds more variables */
#endif
That way, every global variable is declared, defined, and
initialized in one place only: "globals.h". The copy that
gets included in "main.c" is the only copy that defines and
initializes the variables; the copy included in every other
*.c file just declares the variables "extern".
> It would also warn for prng(), because there is no declaration
> (a function declaration in this case) preceding its definition.
Yes.
What I get when I compile it with a whole mess of
needlessly pedantic warnings turned on is:
gcc -I /rhe/include -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -Wfloat-equal
-Wshadow -Wcast-qual -Wcast-align -Wconversion -Winline -Wcomments
-Wundef -Wunused-macros -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wmissing-declarations -Wnested-externs -std=c11 -Os -s declaration-test.c
-L/rhe/lib -lrh -lfl -ly -lm -o /rhe/bin/test/declaration-test.exe
declaration-test.c:3:15: warning:
no previous prototype for ‘prng’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
unsigned long prng(void)
^
> Fix 1: write a header in which unsigned long seed is declared
> extern, and in which prng is prototyped;
> Fix 2: make them static;
> Fix 3: don't use that warning.
> I think I'll go for Fix 3.
It can be fixed more easily:
#include <stdio.h>
unsigned long prng(void); /* added prototype */
unsigned long seed;
unsigned long prng(void)
{
++seed;
seed *= 0x87654321;
return seed >> 7;
}
int main(void)
{
printf("%lu\n", prng());
return 0;
}
Compilation:
gcc -I /rhe/include -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -Wfloat-equal
-Wshadow -Wcast-qual -Wcast-align -Wconversion -Winline -Wcomments
-Wundef -Wunused-macros -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wmissing-declarations -Wnested-externs -std=c11 -Os -s declaration-test.c
-L/rhe/lib -lrh -lfl -ly -lm -o /rhe/bin/test/declaration-test.exe
[no errors, no warnings]
If that was intended to generate pseudo-random numbers, though,
it fails miserably. On my system it prints 17746566 repeatedly.
--
Cheers,
Robbie Hatley
Midway City, CA, USA
perl -le 'print "\154o\156e\167o\154f\100w\145ll\56c\157m"'
http://www.well.com/user/lonewolf/
https://www.facebook.com/robbie.hatley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 22 [1] 2 3 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web