Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #106884 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-24 11:25 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-03-30 00:50 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 287 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-24 11:25 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 11:04 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-24 11:44 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-24 12:59 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:06 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 13:01 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 12:39 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 13:17 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 13:38 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 13:50 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 14:06 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 14:20 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 15:49 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:35 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 14:51 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-24 23:36 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 15:43 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 17:57 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 18:13 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 18:32 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 19:56 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 13:48 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 21:17 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-24 22:40 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 21:56 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-25 01:14 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 01:19 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 01:30 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-25 12:46 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 20:10 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win gordonb.l3ybu@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-27 03:34 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 11:41 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win gordonb.15yss@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-27 14:48 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 13:31 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 22:22 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 15:05 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 23:22 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-28 00:35 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 19:09 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-21 21:01 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-21 12:33 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-21 21:44 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-21 13:37 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:03 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-21 13:15 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-21 13:35 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-21 15:30 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-21 18:44 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 21:08 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-23 10:26 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-23 19:08 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-23 14:26 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-23 16:52 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-23 16:31 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-23 20:42 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-23 22:32 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-24 13:37 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 07:13 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 07:54 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-27 18:20 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:23 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-30 18:18 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 12:12 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 11:14 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 13:29 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 16:00 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 13:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 15:20 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 16:50 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 09:28 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 19:45 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 12:06 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 20:14 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 20:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 21:33 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-28 13:10 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 22:15 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-29 13:23 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 21:29 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 20:47 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 22:46 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 23:46 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-29 00:53 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 02:00 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 05:05 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-29 10:57 -0400
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-29 17:06 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 08:39 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 18:29 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-28 23:44 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 12:33 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 08:54 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 17:38 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-29 16:42 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-29 20:09 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 13:29 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-30 13:18 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-30 08:22 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-30 00:20 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 15:38 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-30 13:19 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 18:29 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-29 01:36 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-29 22:36 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-29 23:50 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-30 10:57 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 15:10 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-30 11:15 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 09:22 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 18:50 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 09:31 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 10:26 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-30 13:23 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-30 12:01 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-02 13:51 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-02 23:04 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-03 17:45 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-03 22:09 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 23:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 15:52 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-30 12:26 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 12:00 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 12:43 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 13:38 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-30 14:21 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-31 04:30 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-31 09:39 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jadill33@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 07:12 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-30 12:10 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-29 13:25 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 14:55 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-29 16:11 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 16:40 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-29 18:14 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 18:32 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 20:53 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-21 00:36 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 05:41 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-24 15:14 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-04-26 14:02 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-26 16:04 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 12:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 14:43 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-29 23:21 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 23:58 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 11:10 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-30 00:09 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 01:51 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-30 01:58 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 12:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 14:29 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 14:36 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 16:23 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-01 11:59 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-01 14:41 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 11:08 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-03 12:02 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 14:32 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-03 14:40 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 16:47 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 16:56 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 18:06 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-07 20:02 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 19:49 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-08 13:26 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-08 13:33 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-08 16:27 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-08 22:28 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-09 13:54 +1200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 07:55 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 10:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 10:45 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 10:53 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-09 14:03 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-10 16:17 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 10:24 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-14 12:29 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-09 13:04 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 14:13 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-08 14:33 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-08 07:36 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-08 10:22 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-07 11:11 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 19:28 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-07 11:44 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-04-08 08:00 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 12:29 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-07 13:46 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 14:10 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-30 21:59 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-31 00:19 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 17:53 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 11:34 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 12:35 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 04:38 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 13:14 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 14:38 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-31 08:52 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-02 13:58 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-02 17:02 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-03 17:50 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 23:10 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-03 07:20 +1200
Optimized? (Was: Even more problems with lcc-win) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-04-02 19:39 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-02 15:59 -0400
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-02 14:11 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-03 17:08 +1200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-03 13:42 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 13:06 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 14:58 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 14:50 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 16:27 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 16:57 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 14:31 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 15:54 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 08:07 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win gordonb.uls6t@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-29 18:17 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 19:20 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-30 18:49 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 20:07 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win gordonb.b709o@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-04-16 03:45 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-16 16:34 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-16 12:16 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-17 02:29 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-27 19:01 -0400
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-25 23:19 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-25 19:10 -0400
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-26 00:54 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-25 19:48 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-26 05:12 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-26 14:00 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win gordonb.zdxct@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-27 02:03 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-24 22:39 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-25 09:13 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 11:24 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-26 08:42 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 19:51 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-26 09:10 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 20:24 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-25 13:43 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-26 10:30 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-03-26 10:23 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 15:08 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 22:43 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 15:55 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 16:27 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-25 01:17 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-25 01:18 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 15:06 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 16:37 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 16:25 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 17:57 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 19:12 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-27 14:19 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 19:25 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 08:10 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 13:01 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 15:50 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 13:07 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-24 15:48 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 16:26 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:32 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 12:53 -0400
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-24 18:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 17:29 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-24 10:55 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 10:47 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 09:37 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 15:07 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 09:56 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 10:39 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-29 12:22 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 15:10 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-29 16:58 -0700
Re: Even more problems with Seed7 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-30 01:02 +0200
Re: Even more problems with Seed7 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-30 01:05 -0500
Re: Even more problems with Seed7 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-30 01:19 -0500
Re: Even more problems with Seed7 mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-04-02 04:19 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 00:34 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 13:05 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-31 00:00 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-04-02 00:28 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 00:50 -0700
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 23:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ruWCA.378630$jb5.72964@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #107418 |
On 29/03/2017 21:36, David Brown wrote: > On 29/03/17 01:36, jacobnavia wrote: > > There are more than a few people that use C++ for development on > Windows. They won't be using /your/ compiler, but it is certainly not > "plainly wrong" or unnecessary in the standard version of windows.h Um, I think it is. Why does the header have to do double duty for C /and/ C++? Why not a dozen other languages while they're about it? If such headers are automatically generated as they should be (from an internal repository of entities exported from Win32 API), then producing dedicated, streamlined versions should be easy. -- bartc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67541f3d-ceab-4385-8767-108e4317067c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #107432 |
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: > Um, I think it is. Why does the header have to do double duty for C > /and/ C++? Why not a dozen other languages while they're about it? A lot of header files are designed to be usable as C or C++, and despite the lack of coordination between the C and C++ committees there can sometimes be advantages to having source files be usable via either language (the same logic may be accessible either via C++ interface or C interface, and having the program logic in the same translation unit as the interface may allow more efficient code generation than would be possible otherwise. Still, it might be a good idea in those cases to having a CPP file which uses #include a .C file to include its logic within the same translation unit. The C code would need to be written in such a way as to be C++ compatible, but someone who only needs the C interface wouldn't need to carry around most of the C++ baggage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 12:26 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ek2u50Ft3siU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107434 |
On 03/30/17 11:52 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: >> Um, I think it is. Why does the header have to do double duty for C >> /and/ C++? Why not a dozen other languages while they're about it? > > A lot of header files are designed to be usable as C or C++, and despite the > lack of coordination between the C and C++ committees What lack of coordination? -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 12:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170330120038.c2fedcdb950a1c78b9939d83@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #107434 |
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:52:08 -0700 (PDT) supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > A lot of header files are designed to be usable as C or C++, and despite the > lack of coordination between the C and C++ committees there can sometimes be > advantages to having source files be usable via either language (the same > logic may be accessible either via C++ interface or C interface, and having > the program logic in the same translation unit as the interface may allow > more efficient code generation than would be possible otherwise. There is no advantage to use a C interface in a C++ environnement if not to build a broken logic in the programmer's mind assuming that C++ is an uppper layer of C. From my POV there should be a clear distinction between C and C++ code by providing specific headers similarly to what C++ provide to access to the C standard library.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 12:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obinac$74c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107464 |
On 30/03/17 12:00, GOTHIER Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
> supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
>
>> A lot of header files are designed to be usable as C or C++, and despite the
>> lack of coordination between the C and C++ committees there can sometimes be
>> advantages to having source files be usable via either language (the same
>> logic may be accessible either via C++ interface or C interface, and having
>> the program logic in the same translation unit as the interface may allow
>> more efficient code generation than would be possible otherwise.
>
> There is no advantage to use a C interface in a C++ environnement if not to
> build a broken logic in the programmer's mind assuming that C++ is an uppper
> layer of C.
>
There is a /huge/ advantage to using a C interface in a C++ program -
there are vast numbers of libraries and functions written in C, with C
header interfaces, that can be used in C++ code without having to write
wrappers or put everything into more C++ style interfaces with classes,
namespaces, etc.
If you write a library in C++ with a C++ header, your code will be
usable from C++. If you write it in C with a C header, your code will
be usable from C and (with varying degrees of porting) a wide range of
other programming languages.
To make your C header file into a C++ header file, all you usually need
is a standard wrapper:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
...
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
> From my POV there should be a clear distinction between C and C++ code by
> providing specific headers similarly to what C++ provide to access to the C
> standard library.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 13:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170330133820.b30852a32a5f5564e5428eba@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #107466 |
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:43:10 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> There is a /huge/ advantage to using a C interface in a C++ program -
> there are vast numbers of libraries and functions written in C, with C
> header interfaces, that can be used in C++ code without having to write
> wrappers or put everything into more C++ style interfaces with classes,
> namespaces, etc.
If C++ programmers are unable to write C++ headers to access C libraries, then
they should rather learn C and give up C++.
> If you write a library in C++ with a C++ header, your code will be
> usable from C++. If you write it in C with a C header, your code will
> be usable from C and (with varying degrees of porting) a wide range of
> other programming languages.
If your C++ library come in a portable object then C programmers can write a
header to use it. Likewise C++ programmers can write C++ headers to use any
library provided as a portable object.
> To make your C header file into a C++ header file, all you usually need
> is a standard wrapper:
>
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> extern "C" {
> #endif
>
> ...
>
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> }
> #endif
As a C programmer I don't think this my duty to add an hack to support the C++
language. As a C++ programmer I may write a C++ header to get access to any
C library.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 14:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obit1s$olm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107470 |
Le 30/03/2017 à 13:38, GOTHIER Nathan a écrit : > If C++ programmers are unable to write C++ headers to access C libraries, then > they should rather learn C and give up C++. YES! Just learn C and do not fill your mind with nonsense! Note that memory space in your brain is VERY expensive, we all have a limited capacity to stuff our minds with colputer trivia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 04:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <obkm1s$56t$3@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #107466 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 30/03/17 12:00, GOTHIER Nathan wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
> > supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> >
> >> A lot of header files are designed to be usable as C or C++, and despite the
> >> lack of coordination between the C and C++ committees there can sometimes be
> >> advantages to having source files be usable via either language (the same
> >> logic may be accessible either via C++ interface or C interface, and having
> >> the program logic in the same translation unit as the interface may allow
> >> more efficient code generation than would be possible otherwise.
> >
> > There is no advantage to use a C interface in a C++ environnement if not to
> > build a broken logic in the programmer's mind assuming that C++ is an uppper
> > layer of C.
> >
>
> There is a /huge/ advantage to using a C interface in a C++ program -
> there are vast numbers of libraries and functions written in C, with C
> header interfaces, that can be used in C++ code without having to write
> wrappers or put everything into more C++ style interfaces with classes,
> namespaces, etc.
>
> If you write a library in C++ with a C++ header, your code will be
> usable from C++. If you write it in C with a C header, your code will
> be usable from C and (with varying degrees of porting) a wide range of
> other programming languages.
You somewhat forget about important use case: programmers writes
C++ library but provides C headers so that library is usable
from other languages than C++. In such case C headers should be
C++ compatible...
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 09:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obl0tv$2fi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107532 |
On 31/03/17 06:30, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 30/03/17 12:00, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: >>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:52:08 -0700 (PDT) >>> supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>> >>>> A lot of header files are designed to be usable as C or C++, and despite the >>>> lack of coordination between the C and C++ committees there can sometimes be >>>> advantages to having source files be usable via either language (the same >>>> logic may be accessible either via C++ interface or C interface, and having >>>> the program logic in the same translation unit as the interface may allow >>>> more efficient code generation than would be possible otherwise. >>> >>> There is no advantage to use a C interface in a C++ environnement if not to >>> build a broken logic in the programmer's mind assuming that C++ is an uppper >>> layer of C. >>> >> >> There is a /huge/ advantage to using a C interface in a C++ program - >> there are vast numbers of libraries and functions written in C, with C >> header interfaces, that can be used in C++ code without having to write >> wrappers or put everything into more C++ style interfaces with classes, >> namespaces, etc. >> >> If you write a library in C++ with a C++ header, your code will be >> usable from C++. If you write it in C with a C header, your code will >> be usable from C and (with varying degrees of porting) a wide range of >> other programming languages. > > You somewhat forget about important use case: programmers writes > C++ library but provides C headers so that library is usable > from other languages than C++. In such case C headers should be > C++ compatible... > Yes, that happens too. I don't think it is as common as the C library accessed from C++, but it is certainly another use of "C/C++" headers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jadill33@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75e97b71-6d93-4ac1-ae3d-c0e1be1c8b76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #107432 |
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 6:24:30 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: > On 29/03/2017 21:36, David Brown wrote: > > On 29/03/17 01:36, jacobnavia wrote: > > > > > There are more than a few people that use C++ for development on > > Windows. They won't be using /your/ compiler, but it is certainly not > > "plainly wrong" or unnecessary in the standard version of windows.h > > Um, I think it is. Why does the header have to do double duty for C > /and/ C++? Why not a dozen other languages while they're about it? > > If such headers are automatically generated as they should be (from an > internal repository of entities exported from Win32 API), then producing > dedicated, streamlined versions should be easy. The ugliness of the Windows header is simply a result of feature creep over a long period of time. The ugliness is contributed by the need to retain past compatibility of Windows programs written with their API. Surely, you have considered the possibility that Microsoft may have designed their own API for the purposes of supporting the development and builds of their own applications like Word, Excel, etc? Windows is a business whose goal is to make money. Proposing large scale changes to their header API to meet your satisfaction has a cost, in design, development, documentation, test, and support. Last I checked, all of those things cost *a lot* of money if you want to pay good people to do that work. There is a lot of code in my job that I could "improve" that would accumulate a huge amount of cost, some in documentation but mostly in test, even something as simple as misspellings in the function APIs. Sometimes you just have to deal with the cruft that's in front of you. Best regards, John D.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 12:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5neqdchl9707kutvmia5divcohoaa9dgo2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #107490 |
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:12:02 -0700 (PDT), jadill33@gmail.com wrote: >On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 6:24:30 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: >> On 29/03/2017 21:36, David Brown wrote: >> > On 29/03/17 01:36, jacobnavia wrote: >> >> > >> > There are more than a few people that use C++ for development on >> > Windows. They won't be using /your/ compiler, but it is certainly not >> > "plainly wrong" or unnecessary in the standard version of windows.h >> >> Um, I think it is. Why does the header have to do double duty for C >> /and/ C++? Why not a dozen other languages while they're about it? >> >> If such headers are automatically generated as they should be (from an >> internal repository of entities exported from Win32 API), then producing >> dedicated, streamlined versions should be easy. > >The ugliness of the Windows header is simply a result of feature creep over >a long period of time. The ugliness is contributed by the need to retain >past compatibility of Windows programs written with their API. Surely, you >have considered the possibility that Microsoft may have designed their own >API for the purposes of supporting the development and builds of their own >applications like Word, Excel, etc? > >Windows is a business whose goal is to make money. Proposing large scale >changes to their header API to meet your satisfaction has a cost, in design, >development, documentation, test, and support. Last I checked, all of those >things cost *a lot* of money if you want to pay good people to do that work. > >There is a lot of code in my job that I could "improve" that would accumulate >a huge amount of cost, some in documentation but mostly in test, even >something as simple as misspellings in the function APIs. Sometimes you >just have to deal with the cruft that's in front of you. Which then also leads to the ugliness of "...Ex" versions of functions when you can no longer extend a function in a compatible way. And then "...ExEx" functions*. Thankfully there don't actually appear to be any "...ExExEx" functions. *Really? "...Ex2" wouldn't have been a better choice?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 13:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4BOCA.259404$IM7.111342@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #107318 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 28/03/2017 20:29, David Brown wrote: >> On 28/03/17 20:45, BartC wrote: > >>> Thanks. According to David Brown, /nothing/ is ever difficult, nothing >>> is too complicated, and no tool is too slow! > >> And I certainly think a good proportion of the things you find >> extraordinarily difficult, complex or obtuse are not difficult at all. >> You have an extraordinary ability to wander into the fields, find little >> molehills, built them up into mountains of your imagination, > >Much of it is fact. Yesterday or the day before I posted some stats >about the size of windows.h on various compilers. You can choose to >compile on a 20Kloc version, or a 500Kloc one. As David said, "Mountains out of molehills".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 14:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <y1PCA.609053$qK5.549963@fx45.am4> |
| In reply to | #107383 |
On 29/03/2017 14:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 28/03/2017 20:29, David Brown wrote: >>> On 28/03/17 20:45, BartC wrote: >> >>>> Thanks. According to David Brown, /nothing/ is ever difficult, nothing >>>> is too complicated, and no tool is too slow! >> >>> And I certainly think a good proportion of the things you find >>> extraordinarily difficult, complex or obtuse are not difficult at all. >>> You have an extraordinary ability to wander into the fields, find little >>> molehills, built them up into mountains of your imagination, >> >> Much of it is fact. Yesterday or the day before I posted some stats >> about the size of windows.h on various compilers. You can choose to >> compile on a 20Kloc version, or a 500Kloc one. > > As David said, "Mountains out of molehills". It seems more to be these big compilers doing exactly that: taking what could be a concise set of declarations and bloating them to unwieldy dimensions. A project has a hundred files each using windows.h. Each windows.h has 340Kloc to be scanned, it's split over 150 files, and involves dealing with 650 #includes. That's 34Mkloc, 15,000 header files and 65,000 #includes when the whole project is compiled. And that's before it's even started on the application itself, /its/ repeated headers, and the dozen other third party libraries it might need. (So Cairo for example is now part of GTK; GTK needs Glib, Pango, ATK, gdk-pixbuf ...) Anyway if people genuinely don't understand the advantages of having small, compact, succinct headers, then I don't know what more I can do. (I haven't mentioned here the problems you will encounter if you have to ever delve inside these headers. To be able to use any of the above from my own language, I will have to first understand then duplicate the functionality declared in those headers. So the smaller the better.) I sometimes wonder exactly how big a header has to be before even people like you say, Come on, this is a joke. I assume there is a threshold. Well, whatever it is, mine happens to be a lot lower, and is in line with reasonable expectations of what is needed to fill a requirement. -- bartc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 16:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obgf4r$ijn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107387 |
On 29/03/17 15:55, bartc wrote: > On 29/03/2017 14:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 28/03/2017 20:29, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 28/03/17 20:45, BartC wrote: >>> >>>>> Thanks. According to David Brown, /nothing/ is ever difficult, nothing >>>>> is too complicated, and no tool is too slow! >>> >>>> And I certainly think a good proportion of the things you find >>>> extraordinarily difficult, complex or obtuse are not difficult at all. >>>> You have an extraordinary ability to wander into the fields, find >>>> little >>>> molehills, built them up into mountains of your imagination, >>> >>> Much of it is fact. Yesterday or the day before I posted some stats >>> about the size of windows.h on various compilers. You can choose to >>> compile on a 20Kloc version, or a 500Kloc one. >> >> As David said, "Mountains out of molehills". > > It seems more to be these big compilers doing exactly that: taking what > could be a concise set of declarations and bloating them to unwieldy > dimensions. Who says these are unwieldy or bloated? Except for you, of course? Has it never occurred to you that there may be good reasons behind the way these headers are written? > > A project has a hundred files each using windows.h. Each windows.h has > 340Kloc to be scanned, it's split over 150 files, and involves dealing > with 650 #includes. > > That's 34Mkloc, 15,000 header files and 65,000 #includes when the whole > project is compiled. And that's before it's even started on the > application itself, /its/ repeated headers, and the dozen other third > party libraries it might need. > > (So Cairo for example is now part of GTK; GTK needs Glib, Pango, ATK, > gdk-pixbuf ...) > > Anyway if people genuinely don't understand the advantages of having > small, compact, succinct headers, then I don't know what more I can do. You could try complaining about it repeatedly in lots of posts in lots of threads, preferably ones where it is irrelevant. No, wait - you've tried that. > > (I haven't mentioned here the problems you will encounter if you have to > ever delve inside these headers. To be able to use any of the above from > my own language, I will have to first understand then duplicate the > functionality declared in those headers. So the smaller the better.) > > I sometimes wonder exactly how big a header has to be before even people > like you say, Come on, this is a joke. I assume there is a threshold. > Well, whatever it is, mine happens to be a lot lower, and is in line > with reasonable expectations of what is needed to fill a requirement. > And by "reasonable expectations", you mean "what Bart thinks despite not knowing why other compilers' headers are the way they are, or what they do" ? Certainly it seems your concept of "reasonable expectations" is highly subjective and wholly unrelated to what anyone else thinks about headers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <CzQCA.307087$dI6.32223@fx31.am4> |
| In reply to | #107388 |
On 29/03/2017 15:11, David Brown wrote: > On 29/03/17 15:55, bartc wrote: >> >> It seems more to be these big compilers doing exactly that: taking what >> could be a concise set of declarations and bloating them to unwieldy >> dimensions. > > Who says these are unwieldy or bloated? Except for you, of course? Has > it never occurred to you that there may be good reasons behind the way > these headers are written? And is it ever occured to /you/ that maybe, just maybe, they really /are/ bloated? > And by "reasonable expectations", you mean "what Bart thinks despite not > knowing why other compilers' headers are the way they are, or what they > do" ? Certainly it seems your concept of "reasonable expectations" is > highly subjective and wholly unrelated to what anyone else thinks about > headers. It's based on my experience of writing programs, mainly graphics apps, on small systems (eg 64KB, 256KB or 640KB main memory, 8 or 16-bit processors, with floppy disk storage, no graphics software support, no floating point hardware) and seeing what could be achieved with such limited means. That 700MHz ARM for RPi, with 500,000KB memory and 16 32-bit registers is the equivalent of a Cray supercomputer compared with what I've been used to, and yet a C compiler struggles to achieve 500 lines per second - unopotimised. Well below expectations. Mine will work at 40-50,000 lines per second - much more within /expectations/. But if that has to be squandered compiling 500,000-line headers in 100 different files /per module/, then what's the point? -- bartc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 18:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obgmbs$bpo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107397 |
Le 29/03/2017 à 17:40, bartc a écrit : > But if that has to be squandered compiling 500,000-line headers in 100 > different files /per module/, then what's the point? Exactly. That is why you should write your own smaller set of headers, as I did for windows. You may remember that it was lcc-win that was the compiler with the smaller set of header files isn't it? If you would start working instead of rambling here you would be finished by now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 18:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r31ellgf.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #107402 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: > If you would start working instead of rambling here you would be > finished by now. :) That's a belting good line, Jacob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 20:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qmdDA.211757$Fa7.145605@fx09.am4> |
| In reply to | #107402 |
On 29/03/2017 17:14, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 29/03/2017 à 17:40, bartc a écrit : >> But if that has to be squandered compiling 500,000-line headers in 100 >> different files /per module/, then what's the point? > > Exactly. That is why you should write your own smaller set of headers, > as I did for windows. You may remember that it was lcc-win that was the > compiler with the smaller set of header files isn't it? Yes, that set of headers is what I used for testing, to compile big code such as sqlite. (But I'm looking, for windows.h, into using a version from any compiler (eg MSVC), and using that info to write (properly, not just a token stream) a new streamlined and compact, one-file generic windows.h. Extensive tweaks will be needed however as such files as always full of implementation-specific details.) > > If you would start working instead of rambling here you would be > finished by now. > Huh? There's no rush, this is a part-time thing of no consequence. But I decided to start the project on Christmas day '16 and it would be fitting to upload a working version on Easter Sunday '17. I'll anyway stop working on it at the end of April 17 when hopefully most of the boxes for the original aims have been ticked. Otherwise, this could be on-going for a long time... -- bartc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-21 00:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xBbKA.519319$8b6.509714@fx19.am4> |
| In reply to | #107516 |
On 30/03/2017 20:53, bartc wrote: > On 29/03/2017 17:14, jacobnavia wrote: [Fun C Compiler Project] >> If you would start working instead of rambling here you would be >> finished by now. >> > > Huh? There's no rush, this is a part-time thing of no consequence. > > But I decided to start the project on Christmas day '16 and it would be > fitting to upload a working version on Easter Sunday '17. I managed a version a few days early, that could compile 'hello world'. But it's taken a further week to get it to compile itself. The project is here: https://github.com/bartg/langs/tree/master/bccproj But I can't promise it will manage to compile anything other than the test programs I've used. > I'll anyway > stop working on it at the end of April 17 when hopefully most of the > boxes for the original aims have been ticked. They're mostly ticked now, so I'll get back to my own languages for a bit I think. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 05:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b2f4ffb-1575-4941-995f-54e10716a208@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #108315 |
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:36:05 PM UTC-3, Bart wrote: > On 30/03/2017 20:53, bartc wrote: > > On 29/03/2017 17:14, jacobnavia wrote: > > [Fun C Compiler Project] > > >> If you would start working instead of rambling here you would be > >> finished by now. > >> > > > > Huh? There's no rush, this is a part-time thing of no consequence. > > > > But I decided to start the project on Christmas day '16 and it would be > > fitting to upload a working version on Easter Sunday '17. > > I managed a version a few days early, that could compile 'hello world'. > But it's taken a further week to get it to compile itself. The project > is here: > > https://github.com/bartg/langs/tree/master/bccproj > Bart, congratulations for your achievements. I would like to understand how to generate assembly and executable files. What's is the output of your compiler? (I didn't work to much in my C parser, but I did some changes in the preprocessor) What is the link for the aims of your other static language? For thouse interested in languages I also recommend other works. https://github.com/gingerBill/Odin and Rust language. I have used C and C++, but the language I would like to have is something in between compatible with C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web