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 18 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 22 Next page →
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 19:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bipcmalf8k42us851acjkcou2sbcgv2a4d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #62698 |
On Wed, 27 May 2015 21:38:01 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 27/05/2015 21:04, David Brown wrote:
>> On 27/05/15 19:39, Bartc wrote:
>>> On 27/05/2015 18:18, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> Bartc wrote:
>
>>> Which implementations would return false for 1.0 == 1? (or 1.0 == 1.0?)
>
>> I believe it is perfectly possible for the comparison to be false
>> (perhaps not with 1.0, since that has a nice easy representation in IEEE
>> formats). In particular, compilers on x86 systems might use 80-bit
>> registers to store values temporarily, even if they are 32-bit or 64-bit
>> in memory - and equality comparisons may fail.
>>
>> It is also possible, I think, for some types of NaN (which may count as
>> "valid value", depending on your definitions) to always fail
>> comparisons. In such cases, neither "a == b" nor "a != b" will be true.
>
>What about a <= b, a < b, a > b or a >= b when either operand is a NaN?
All false. And NaNs don't compare to themselves either:
double a=NaN;
if (a==a)
Never.
if (a!=a)
Not this either.
if (a>a)
Uh uh.
if (a<=a)
Nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 19:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11qcma5dei04ameg9h91m06m3b1be3u53h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #62706 |
On Wed, 27 May 2015 19:54:57 -0500, Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Wed, 27 May 2015 21:38:01 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >>On 27/05/2015 21:04, David Brown wrote: >>> On 27/05/15 19:39, Bartc wrote: >>>> On 27/05/2015 18:18, Les Cargill wrote: >>>>> Bartc wrote: >> >>>> Which implementations would return false for 1.0 == 1? (or 1.0 == 1.0?) >> >>> I believe it is perfectly possible for the comparison to be false >>> (perhaps not with 1.0, since that has a nice easy representation in IEEE >>> formats). In particular, compilers on x86 systems might use 80-bit >>> registers to store values temporarily, even if they are 32-bit or 64-bit >>> in memory - and equality comparisons may fail. >>> >>> It is also possible, I think, for some types of NaN (which may count as >>> "valid value", depending on your definitions) to always fail >>> comparisons. In such cases, neither "a == b" nor "a != b" will be true. >> >>What about a <= b, a < b, a > b or a >= b when either operand is a NaN? > > >All false. And NaNs don't compare to themselves either: > > double a=NaN; > if (a==a) > Never. > if (a!=a) > Not this either. > if (a>a) > Uh uh. > if (a<=a) > Nope. My mistake, the inequality test above would return *true*. All the others return false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 14:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk71cc$48i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62698 |
On 27/05/15 22:38, Bartc wrote: > On 27/05/2015 21:04, David Brown wrote: >> On 27/05/15 19:39, Bartc wrote: >>> On 27/05/2015 18:18, Les Cargill wrote: >>>> Bartc wrote: > >>> Which implementations would return false for 1.0 == 1? (or 1.0 == 1.0?) > >> I believe it is perfectly possible for the comparison to be false >> (perhaps not with 1.0, since that has a nice easy representation in IEEE >> formats). In particular, compilers on x86 systems might use 80-bit >> registers to store values temporarily, even if they are 32-bit or 64-bit >> in memory - and equality comparisons may fail. >> >> It is also possible, I think, for some types of NaN (which may count as >> "valid value", depending on your definitions) to always fail >> comparisons. In such cases, neither "a == b" nor "a != b" will be true. > > What about a <= b, a < b, a > b or a >= b when either operand is a NaN? I believe these will also return "unordered" for the comparisons. The compiler will probably consider them as not "true", but it may also lead to some sort of exception or signal. > >> I cannot say for sure what the standards allow, and I haven't seen such >> problems personally, but I have heard enough war stories from real code >> to know that one should never compare floating point values for equality. > > From badly designed code no doubt. It should be fine if you know what > you're doing. Technically, that may be a true statement - but because the details of "what you're doing" depends highly on the compiler, the target, the compiler flags, the values in use, and the exact source code and exact generated object code, I'd say you can so rarely rely on floating point equality that it is best to assume it is always bad design. > > But since the language doesn't actually ban testing for floating point > equality, I can't see that being a reason for not allowing it anywhere > else. The language doesn't ban jumping off cliffs either, but I am sure there are good reasons not to do so! Remember, the C standards are standards documents - not guides to good programming or software design. > > (Looking at my own code, there are plenty of comparisons against 0.0, > most likely of values which might have been specifically set to zero > rather than the approximate result of a calculation, when some tolerance > would need be taken into account.) > A comparison to 0.0 like that will almost certainly work as expected. But remember that you can still get weird effects - the format supports signed zeros, subnormals which may appear to be 0 in some circumstances but not others, and qNaNs that will compare "false" for inequality with 0.0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87r3q1lp6d.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62695 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 27/05/15 19:39, Bartc wrote:
[...]
>> double a,b=1.0;
>>
>> a = b;
>>
>> Are there any implementations where a == b is false? (Assume b contains
>> a valid value.)
>>
>
> I believe it is perfectly possible for the comparison to be false
> (perhaps not with 1.0, since that has a nice easy representation in
> IEEE formats). In particular, compilers on x86 systems might use
> 80-bit registers to store values temporarily, even if they are 32-bit
> or 64-bit in memory - and equality comparisons may fail.
C doesn't require IEEE formats or semantics.
Any floating-point type that meets the requirements of the
floating-point model in N1570 5.2.4.2.2 can represent 1.0 exactly
-- but that doesn't necessarily mean that 1.0 == 1.0 will evaluate
to 1. An implementation where 1.0 != 1.0 might be conforming,
but it would IMHO be badly broken.
> It is also possible, I think, for some types of NaN (which may count
> as "valid value", depending on your definitions) to always fail
> comparisons. In such cases, neither "a == b" nor "a != b" will be
> true.
If a and b are both NaNs, then `a == b` is false and `a != b` is true
(assuming IEEE semantics).
[...]
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn380v6g3h.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #62701 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 27/05/15 19:39, Bartc wrote: > > [...] > >>> double a,b=1.0; >>> >>> a = b; >>> >>> Are there any implementations where a == b is false? (Assume b contains >>> a valid value.) >> >> I believe it is perfectly possible for the comparison to be false >> (perhaps not with 1.0, since that has a nice easy representation in >> IEEE formats). In particular, compilers on x86 systems might use >> 80-bit registers to store values temporarily, even if they are 32-bit >> or 64-bit in memory - and equality comparisons may fail. > > C doesn't require IEEE formats or semantics. > > Any floating-point type that meets the requirements of the > floating-point model in N1570 5.2.4.2.2 can represent 1.0 exactly > -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that 1.0 == 1.0 will evaluate > to 1. An implementation where 1.0 != 1.0 might be conforming, > but it would IMHO be badly broken. That's true for '1.0 == 1.0' but only because of the latitude granted in converting floating-point constants. In the original question the equality test must yield '1' as its value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 11:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn7fq76g7t.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #62695 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 27/05/15 19:39, Bartc wrote: >> On 27/05/2015 18:18, Les Cargill wrote: >>> Bartc wrote: >>> >>>> (And there are a huge number of values for which floating point equality >>>> can be tested without problem, including all the 4 billion values of a >>>> 32-bit int.) >>> >>> That is so implementation dependent than if I were part of >>> the governance for the language, I'd suggest avoiding it. >> >> Which implementations would return false for 1.0 == 1? (or 1.0 == 1.0?) >> >> How about this: >> >> double a,b=1.0; >> >> a = b; >> >> Are there any implementations where a == b is false? (Assume b contains >> a valid value.) > > I believe it is perfectly possible for the comparison to be false > (perhaps not with 1.0, since that has a nice easy representation in > IEEE formats). In conforming C it is not possible, as long as the value held in 'b' is a valid and comparable value (and not, eg, NaN). > In particular, compilers on x86 systems might use > 80-bit registers to store values temporarily, even if they are 32-bit > or 64-bit in memory - and equality comparisons may fail. That is irrelevant in this case. > It is also possible, I think, for some types of NaN (which may count > as "valid value", depending on your definitions) to always fail > comparisons. In such cases, neither "a == b" nor "a != b" will be > true. Yes but that is not the case here. > I cannot say for sure what the standards allow, and I haven't seen > such problems personally, but I have heard enough war stories from > real code to know that one should never compare floating point values > for equality. ISTM that if you are going to position yourself as an expert then it behooves you to _be_ sure. There are cases where C semantics requires floating-point equality to work, and this is one of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mnp1ni$fqi$3@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #65158 |
In article <kfn7fq76g7t.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>, Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: ... >ISTM that if you are going to position yourself as an expert then >it behooves you to _be_ sure. There are cases where C semantics >requires floating-point equality to work, and this is one of >them. When did DB "position" himself as an "expert" ? -- People who say they'll vote for someone else because Obama couldn't solve all of Bush's messes are like people complaining that he couldn't cure cancer, so they'll go and vote for cancer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnpp3yzqtf.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65160 |
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: > In article <kfn7fq76g7t.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>, > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > ... >> ISTM that if you are going to position yourself as an expert then >> it behooves you to _be_ sure. There are cases where C semantics >> requires floating-point equality to work, and this is one of >> them. > > When did DB "position" himself as an "expert" ? Of course I don't know if David Brown intends to position himself has an expert or not. But that is often how it comes across, based on his writing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mnrb5u$ut5$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #65278 |
In article <kfnpp3yzqtf.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>, Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: > >> In article <kfn7fq76g7t.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>, >> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >> ... >>> ISTM that if you are going to position yourself as an expert then >>> it behooves you to _be_ sure. There are cases where C semantics >>> requires floating-point equality to work, and this is one of >>> them. >> >> When did DB "position" himself as an "expert" ? > >Of course I don't know if David Brown intends to position himself >has an expert or not. But that is often how it comes across, >based on his writing. I've never been all that impressed with anything he's written on this forum. -- There are many self-professed Christians who seem to think that because they believe in Jesus' sacrifice they can reject Jesus' teachings about how we should treat others. In this country, they show that they reject Jesus' teachings by voting for Republicans.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-21 14:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <molck9$oej$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65278 |
On 11/07/15 16:55, Tim Rentsch wrote: > gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: > >> In article <kfn7fq76g7t.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>, >> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >> ... >>> ISTM that if you are going to position yourself as an expert then >>> it behooves you to _be_ sure. There are cases where C semantics >>> requires floating-point equality to work, and this is one of >>> them. >> >> When did DB "position" himself as an "expert" ? > > Of course I don't know if David Brown intends to position himself > has an expert or not. But that is often how it comes across, > based on his writing. > "expert" is a relative term - I am more knowledgeable and experienced than many people in some things, and less so in others. You'll find plenty of my posts making concrete statements when I am sure of my case, and plenty of posts where I asking other "experts". You will also find posts where I have said things as "an expert" and been corrected. It is certainly the case that with my style of writing, I sometimes state opinions or theories as though they were fact - the advantage of Usenet is that there is usually someone who will point it out when it happens. But remember there is always the "IMHO" implicit at the start of every newsgroup post. In this particular case, however, I think I was quite clear about not being an expert on the standards-mandated correct behaviour for floating point comparisons, and merely recommended caution because things may not work in practice as you might think they should in theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-21 13:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <moldnu$t5l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66104 |
On 21/07/15 13:08, David Brown wrote: > But remember there is always the "IMHO" implicit at the start > of every newsgroup post. Not so. For example, consider a question such as "can a struct value be used as the controlling expression in an 'if' statement?" A reply such as this: The Standard says: 6.8.4.1 The if statement Constraints 1 The controlling expression of an if statement shall have scalar type. 6.2.5 says: 21 Arithmetic types and pointer types are collectively called scalar types. Array and structure types are collectively called aggregate types. So structure types are not scalar types, and thus the answer to your question is "no". Such a reply would not be a matter of the poster's opinion, but a matter of objective and verifiable fact. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-21 15:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <molher$ave$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66105 |
On 21/07/15 14:27, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 21/07/15 13:08, David Brown wrote: >> But remember there is always the "IMHO" implicit at the start >> of every newsgroup post. > > Not so. For example, consider a question such as "can a struct value be > used as the controlling expression in an 'if' statement?" A reply such > as this: > > The Standard says: > > 6.8.4.1 The if statement > Constraints > 1 > The controlling expression of an if statement shall have scalar type. > > 6.2.5 says: > 21 Arithmetic types and pointer types are collectively called scalar > types. Array and structure types are collectively called aggregate types. > > So structure types are not scalar types, and thus the answer to your > question is "no". > > Such a reply would not be a matter of the poster's opinion, but a matter > of objective and verifiable fact. > True enough, but that's just my opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-22 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55afb0e7.1706640@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #66104 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > But remember there is always the "IMHO" implicit at the start > of every newsgroup post. Not in my case. For my posts, it's "IMAO". Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnwpxof8pu.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66104 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 11/07/15 16:55, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: >> >>> In article <kfn7fq76g7t.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>, >>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >>> ... >>>> ISTM that if you are going to position yourself as an expert then >>>> it behooves you to _be_ sure. There are cases where C semantics >>>> requires floating-point equality to work, and this is one of >>>> them. >>> >>> When did DB "position" himself as an "expert" ? >> >> Of course I don't know if David Brown intends to position himself >> has an expert or not. But that is often how it comes across, >> based on his writing. > > "expert" is a relative term - I am more knowledgeable and > experienced than many people in some things, and less so in > others. You'll find plenty of my posts making concrete statements > when I am sure of my case, and plenty of posts where I asking > other "experts". You will also find posts where I have said > things as "an expert" and been corrected. There is nothing wrong with someone positioning himself or herself as an expert, assuming they actually are one. I position myself as an expert in certains areas of the C standard, because I have researched them extensively and feel qualified to speak about them with confidence that what I would say will be correct. The key thing is to differentiate between areas where one is qualified to speak as an expert and areas where one is less confident, less sure or less certain as to the correctness of what statements might be made. > It is certainly the case that with my style of writing, I > sometimes state opinions or theories as though they were fact - Yes that is consistent with what I observe. I suggest that it would be better for both you and your audience(s) if you changed that habit. > the advantage of Usenet is that there is usually someone who will > point it out when it happens. That is true whether you present yourself as an expert or not. > But remember there is always the > "IMHO" implicit at the start of every newsgroup post. The H in IMHO is not consistent with presenting oneself as an expert. If you're going to do one, you shouldn't claim to be doing the other. > In this particular case, however, I think I was quite clear about > not being an expert on the standards-mandated correct behaviour > for floating point comparisons, and merely recommended caution > because things may not work in practice as you might think they > should in theory. My point is that attitude is not consistent with someone who wants to present themself as an expert, even if he or she is not presenting themself as an expert on the particular subject. The mark of an expert is that when they are not sure, they check, and also take care to differentiate between statements of opinion and statements of fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-21 13:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <molbsu$lq5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65158 |
On 10/07/15 20:05, Tim Rentsch wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> I cannot say for sure what the standards allow, and I haven't seen >> such problems personally, but I have heard enough war stories from >> real code to know that one should never compare floating point values >> for equality. > > ISTM that if you are going to position yourself as an expert then > it behooves you to _be_ sure. There are cases where C semantics > requires floating-point equality to work, and this is one of > them. > It is more important to be sure of what you know and don't know, than to be sure of the details themselves. I am sure that I don't know all the cases where floating point equality comparison will work or may fail, according to the C standards. And I am sure that there are compiler writers that don't know all the rules. So I am sure that it is a good idea never to rely on floating point equality comparisons in code. (You have done a good job of convincing me that the C standards require a = b; a == b to be true for normal floating point values - but you won't easily convince me that it is always the case for all the compilers I use when faced with real-world code.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 14:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnsi8cey1b.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66102 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 10/07/15 20:05, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> I cannot say for sure what the standards allow, and I haven't seen >>> such problems personally, but I have heard enough war stories from >>> real code to know that one should never compare floating point values >>> for equality. >> >> ISTM that if you are going to position yourself as an expert then >> it behooves you to _be_ sure. There are cases where C semantics >> requires floating-point equality to work, and this is one of >> them. > > It is more important to be sure of what you know and don't know, than to > be sure of the details themselves. I am sure that I don't know all the > cases where floating point equality comparison will work or may fail, > according to the C standards. And I am sure that there are compiler > writers that don't know all the rules. So I am sure that it is a good > idea never to rely on floating point equality comparisons in code. > > (You have done a good job of convincing me that the C standards require > a = b; a == b to be true for normal floating point values - Don't take my word for it. Look it up in the Standard yourself and verify my statements. Everyone will be the better for it. > but you > won't easily convince me that it is always the case for all the > compilers I use when faced with real-world code.) This attitude is a terrible one for any professional software engineer to espouse, doubly so for anyone looking to be respected as an expert. That it is common serves as an indictment of the profession. No other engineering discipline affords such an attitude - the expect their tools to work, and they insist on getting tools that _do_ work. It's a sad statement on software development that its practitioners learn from an early age to expect less. (And please, no crap about "the real world". If the profession refused to tolerate substandard tools then the substandard tools would disappear.) There is an excellent article/essay by Tony Hoare entitled "The Engineering of Software: A Startling Contradiction". I recommend to anyone who hasn't read it to get a copy (should be easy to find still, I think) and read it through. Just a few pages, but well worth reading.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 20:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mplmnc$oh6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66358 |
On 25/07/15 23:18, Tim Rentsch wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 10/07/15 20:05, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> >>>> I cannot say for sure what the standards allow, and I haven't seen >>>> such problems personally, but I have heard enough war stories from >>>> real code to know that one should never compare floating point values >>>> for equality. >>> >>> ISTM that if you are going to position yourself as an expert then >>> it behooves you to _be_ sure. There are cases where C semantics >>> requires floating-point equality to work, and this is one of >>> them. >> >> It is more important to be sure of what you know and don't know, than to >> be sure of the details themselves. I am sure that I don't know all the >> cases where floating point equality comparison will work or may fail, >> according to the C standards. And I am sure that there are compiler >> writers that don't know all the rules. So I am sure that it is a good >> idea never to rely on floating point equality comparisons in code. >> >> (You have done a good job of convincing me that the C standards require >> a = b; a == b to be true for normal floating point values - > > Don't take my word for it. Look it up in the Standard yourself > and verify my statements. Everyone will be the better for it. > Your interpretation here is consistent with my understanding of what I read in the standard - and in cases like this I think you are a better judge than I about what the standards mean. >> but you >> won't easily convince me that it is always the case for all the >> compilers I use when faced with real-world code.) > > This attitude is a terrible one for any professional software > engineer to espouse, doubly so for anyone looking to be respected > as an expert. That it is common serves as an indictment of the > profession. No other engineering discipline affords such an > attitude - the expect their tools to work, and they insist on > getting tools that _do_ work. It's a sad statement on software > development that its practitioners learn from an early age to > expect less. (And please, no crap about "the real world". If > the profession refused to tolerate substandard tools then the > substandard tools would disappear.) Whenever possible, I use the best quality tools I can for the job in hand (within limitations such as price range suitable for the task). But no matter how much I or anyone else demands that our toolchains be bug-free, well-documented, feature-rich and conform precisely to the standards, it does not happen. For the more popular microcontroller and cpu families, there is often a range of toolchains available, including zero-cost, "cheap and cheerful" commercial, commercial open-source, and "big name" commercial closed source tools. But for smaller, more unusual or less popular devices, the range is very limited. A professional makes the best choice of tools he can, based on availability, requirements, and budgets. He learns to understand the tools, including any flaws in them, and how to get the best out of them. Then he uses them. Most of the time, the tools I use have been good. But there have been occasions when I have had to use tools with known, serious issues. And I know of a number of embedded toolchains that had appalling bugs or limitations. But sometimes that is what we have to work with due to other conditions or restrictions in the project - and as professionals, we do the job despite limitations in the tools (or if we know we cannot do it, we refuse the job). It would be nice if there were perfect, bug-free toolchains to choose, but that doesn't ever happen when you are dealing with such complex software, and such complex standards and specifications. I think it is fair to say that toolchain quality has been increasing, and toolchain bugs are much less of an issue now than they used to be (mostly due to high quality free toolchains chasing out the cheap low quality ones, and forcing the expensive ones to be more diligent than before). As a professional, you learn good habits and guidelines - and you learn when it is a good idea to push limits and when it is a good idea to be conservative. In some cases, such as floating point equality comparison or complex volatile expressions, you know there is a non-zero risk that there will be problems with the toolchain. Since there is almost never a good reason to need these types of expressions, it is a simple decision to avoid them. Here is a link about toolchain issues with "volatile": <https://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/emsoft08-preprint.pdf> > > There is an excellent article/essay by Tony Hoare entitled "The > Engineering of Software: A Startling Contradiction". I recommend > to anyone who hasn't read it to get a copy (should be easy to > find still, I think) and read it through. Just a few pages, but > well worth reading. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 09:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfny4gjtruz.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66716 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 25/07/15 23:18, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> On 10/07/15 20:05, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>>> >>>>> I cannot say for sure what the standards allow, and I haven't seen >>>>> such problems personally, but I have heard enough war stories from >>>>> real code to know that one should never compare floating point values >>>>> for equality. >>>> >>>> ISTM that if you are going to position yourself as an expert then >>>> it behooves you to _be_ sure. There are cases where C semantics >>>> requires floating-point equality to work, and this is one of >>>> them. >>> >>> It is more important to be sure of what you know and don't know, than to >>> be sure of the details themselves. I am sure that I don't know all the >>> cases where floating point equality comparison will work or may fail, >>> according to the C standards. And I am sure that there are compiler >>> writers that don't know all the rules. So I am sure that it is a good >>> idea never to rely on floating point equality comparisons in code. >>> >>> (You have done a good job of convincing me that the C standards require >>> a = b; a == b to be true for normal floating point values - >> >> Don't take my word for it. Look it up in the Standard yourself >> and verify my statements. Everyone will be the better for it. > > Your interpretation here is consistent with my understanding of what I > read in the standard - and in cases like this I think you are a better > judge than I about what the standards mean. Hmmm, maybe so (and thank you for the implied compliment), but I still suggest it would be better both for you and your co-workers (not to mention the newsgroup) if you would take the time to confirm my statements indepedently. Plus then I won't have to post such responses so often. :) >>> but you >>> won't easily convince me that it is always the case for all the >>> compilers I use when faced with real-world code.) >> >> This attitude is a terrible one for any professional software >> engineer to espouse, doubly so for anyone looking to be respected >> as an expert. That it is common serves as an indictment of the >> profession. No other engineering discipline affords such an >> attitude - the expect their tools to work, and they insist on >> getting tools that _do_ work. It's a sad statement on software >> development that its practitioners learn from an early age to >> expect less. (And please, no crap about "the real world". If >> the profession refused to tolerate substandard tools then the >> substandard tools would disappear.) > > Whenever possible, I use the best quality tools I can for the job > in hand (within limitations such as price range suitable for the > task). But no matter how much I or anyone else demands that our > toolchains be bug-free, well-documented, feature-rich and conform > precisely to the standards, it does not happen. [snip elaboration] Fine but that isn't what I'm talking about. A tool doesn't have to be the best tool in the world to satisfy some level of quality threshhold. Conflating the two is part of the problem. Don't do that. > Here is a link about toolchain issues with "volatile": > > <https://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/emsoft08-preprint.pdf> I've already read this paper, and in fact posted rather extensively on the subject of volatile several years ago in the newsgroup here (or possibly comp.std.c, but I think it was here). The problem in this area is somewhat different - it isn't so much that compilers are doing it wrong (even though clearly that does happen in some cases) but that the Standard is unclear about what is required. And to some extent this illustrates my point: software developers should rise up in arms and insist that the semantics of 'volatile' be better defined, both in terms of what the semantics are and how they are described. Unfortunately that has not happened, due in large part to the culture of living with substandard tools (and substandard Standards, no pun intended). So by being accepting of the situation you are contributing to making it worse. Don't do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 22:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mk61hk$abf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62667 |
Just for grins, I wrote a tiny program to exercise the logic I imagined
might be used in a switch statement with both range and 'normal' case
statements. Notice that I used strchr() to do the range test. :-)
I've commented out the switch C code and shown unoptimized replacement
code on the next line. I think this approach would allow nesting switch
statements, but haven't tested. I think this should be enough to provide
a start for anyone who might like to play...
~/Desktop: nt 3 strange.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int main(void)
{ char *data = "123ABCDEFGHIJKLMN", *p = data, x;
while (x = *p++)
{ /* switch (x) { */
do { int test = 1;
/* case 'A'..'F' in "ABCDEF": */
if (test && (test = !strchr("ABCDEF",x))) goto L2;
printf("1st case: %c\n",x);
break;
/* case 'G'..'L' in "GHIJKL": */
L2: if (test && (test = !strchr("GHIJKL",x))) goto L3;
printf("2nd case: %c\n",x);
break;
/* case 'M': */
L3: if (test && (test = (x != 'M'))) goto L4;
printf("3rd case: %c\n",x);
break;
/* default: */
L4: printf("4th case: %c\n",x);
/* } */
} while (0);
}
return 0;
}
~/Desktop: gcc strange.c -o strange
~/Desktop: strange
4th case: 1
4th case: 2
4th case: 3
1st case: A
1st case: B
1st case: C
1st case: D
1st case: E
1st case: F
2nd case: G
2nd case: H
2nd case: I
2nd case: J
2nd case: K
2nd case: L
3rd case: M
4th case: N
~/Desktop:
--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 10:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk6n2n$sn7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62711 |
On 28/05/2015 04:20, Morris Dovey wrote:
> Just for grins, I wrote a tiny program to exercise the logic I imagined
> might be used in a switch statement with both range and 'normal' case
> statements. Notice that I used strchr() to do the range test. :-)
>
> I've commented out the switch C code and shown unoptimized replacement
> code on the next line. I think this approach would allow nesting switch
> statements, but haven't tested. I think this should be enough to provide
> a start for anyone who might like to play...
>
> ~/Desktop: nt 3 strange.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <string.h>
>
> int main(void)
> { char *data = "123ABCDEFGHIJKLMN", *p = data, x;
>
> while (x = *p++)
> { /* switch (x) { */
> do { int test = 1;
>
> /* case 'A'..'F' in "ABCDEF": */
> if (test && (test = !strchr("ABCDEF",x))) goto L2;
> printf("1st case: %c\n",x);
> break;
>
> /* case 'G'..'L' in "GHIJKL": */
> L2: if (test && (test = !strchr("GHIJKL",x))) goto L3;
> printf("2nd case: %c\n",x);
> break;
>
> /* case 'M': */
> L3: if (test && (test = (x != 'M'))) goto L4;
> printf("3rd case: %c\n",x);
> break;
>
> /* default: */
> L4: printf("4th case: %c\n",x);
> /* } */
> } while (0);
> }
> return 0;
> }
What's the purpose of the 'test' variable here? I can't see it, although
it seems to make it marginally faster than without it.
However, using a conventional switch was about 6 times as fast (using
the test code here: http://pastebin.com/7eyBwyVc which just keeps count
of the different groups of letters).
Maintaining the speed is part of the reason for using switch; you don't
want to be calling functions at runtime even if they would be faster
than strchr.
(Adding a char->char mapping on the switch expression, such as ebcdic to
ascii, added a 10-15% overhead. This would not be needed on the case
labels as they are constant and you would hope the translation is done
at compile time. But it was still 5 times as fast than using strchr.)
I don't understand either what problems you are envisioning with nested
switch statements; each statement should be independent of any other.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web