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 2 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 22 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 16:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhdm68$1pc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60988 |
On 24/04/15 12:42, Robbie Hatley wrote: > <snip> > > > If that was intended to generate pseudo-random numbers, though, > it fails miserably. On my system it prints 17746566 repeatedly. That doesn't surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that, with delicious irony, you ignored my warning. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-25 22:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <-vidnWqWEJFf76HInZ2dnUVZ572dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #61008 |
On 4/24/2015 8:07 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > ... Nor does it surprise me that,with delicious irony, > you ignored my warning. Warning? Ah, you must mean your "don't try this at home". But Richard, that's the best way in the world to pique my curiosity; when I see something like that, of *course* I'm going to try it at home. :D -- Cheers, Robbie Hatley Midway City, CA, USA perl -le 'print "\154o\156e\167o\154f\100w\145ll\56c\157m"' http://www.well.com/user/lonewolf/ https://www.facebook.com/robbie.hatley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-26 14:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhip5e$pua$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61112 |
On 26/04/15 06:08, Robbie Hatley wrote: > > On 4/24/2015 8:07 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> ... Nor does it surprise me that,with delicious irony, >> you ignored my warning. > > Warning? Ah, you must mean your "don't try this at home". > But Richard, that's the best way in the world to pique my > curiosity; when I see something like that, of *course* I'm > going to try it at home. :D No user-serviceable parts inside? *I'll* be the judge of that! -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-26 15:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <553d0809.18237421@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #61134 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 26/04/15 06:08, Robbie Hatley wrote: > > > > On 4/24/2015 8:07 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > > >> ... Nor does it surprise me that,with delicious irony, > >> you ignored my warning. > > > > Warning? Ah, you must mean your "don't try this at home". > > But Richard, that's the best way in the world to pique my > > curiosity; when I see something like that, of *course* I'm > > going to try it at home. :D > > No user-serviceable parts inside? *I'll* be the judge of that! As behooves the proper programmer. Hack it, and if (when...) it breaks, hack it back. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 11:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87zj5z6s70.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #60855 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 23/04/15 10:25, Noob wrote: >> Ian Collins wrote: >>> Noob wrote: >>>> Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> >>>>> Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype >>>>> declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself >>>>> provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that >>>>> do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file. >>>> >>>> I think the intent is clear: >>>> - either the function is local, then it must be static >>>> - or it is global, then you declare it in the appropriate header >>> >>> Nit-pick time! >>> >>> By the time the compiler can diagnose this condition, the >>> preprocessor will have done its thing with include files. Therefore >>> there there is no way for it to tell whether a prototype is local or >>> in a header. >> >> I don't understand your remark. >> >> If a given function is only intended to be used in the current >> translation unit, then it should be static. >> >> If it is not static, then it is intended to be called from other >> translation units, and a prototype should be provided in the >> appropriate header. > > What Ian is saying is that the compiler cannot know whether a function > prototype appears in an appropriate header. And in fact, it not only > can't, but doesn't. But Ian's comment (I'm piggybacking my reply here for simplicity) is not strictly true, surely? The compiler can know, and if it wants remember, where it saw a prototype. Whether that's worth the effort is debatable, especially as would then have to decide what to do with multiple prototypes, some in headers and some not. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 09:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mhae0v$j7$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #60851 |
In article <cprrdsF6f3iU3@mid.individual.net>,
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>Nit-pick time!
>
>By the time the compiler can diagnose this condition, the preprocessor
>will have done its thing with include files. Therefore there there is
>no way for it to tell whether a prototype is local or in a header.
True, but it doesn't matter. The OP showed that if he put his own
prototype in place (as shown below) it eliminates the warning:
int foo(int); /* Add this line right before the definition */
int foo(int x) { ... }
Also, the previous poster's statement was that that was the intent (that
you have a declaration in a header file), not that the system would enforce
it (since, as you point out, it can't really do that).
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as foolish,
and by the rulers as useful.
(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87sibqisno.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60851 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
> Noob wrote:
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> On 23/04/2015 09:09, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype
>>> declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself
>>> provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that
>>> do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file.
>>
>> I think the intent is clear:
>> - either the function is local, then it must be static
>> - or it is global, then you declare it in the appropriate header
>
> Nit-pick time!
>
> By the time the compiler can diagnose this condition, the preprocessor
> will have done its thing with include files. Therefore there there is
> no way for it to tell whether a prototype is local or in a header.
Well, it *could*. The preprocessor can (and in the case of gcc, does)
emit directives that the compiler could use to determine which source
file a given declaration appears in. Note that compilers are able to
emit warning messages pointing to the exact file name and line number on
which a construct actually appears. A compiler could use that same
information to decide whether or not to issue a warning.
--
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 | 2015-04-25 03:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn4mo4r0cg.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #60851 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
> Noob wrote:
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> On 23/04/2015 09:09, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype
>>> declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself
>>> provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that
>>> do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file.
>>
>> I think the intent is clear:
>> - either the function is local, then it must be static
>> - or it is global, then you declare it in the appropriate header
>
> Nit-pick time!
>
> By the time the compiler can diagnose
> this condition, the preprocessor will
> have done its thing with include files.
> Therefore there there is no way for it
> to tell whether a prototype is local or
> in a header.
I suggest otherwise:
File proto.h:
int foo( double );
File proto.c:
#include "proto.h"
int foo( int );
int
main(){
return 0;
}
Result of gcc -ansi -pedantic proto.c -
proto.c:3: error: conflicting types for 'foo'
proto.h:1: error: previous declaration of 'foo' was here
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 10:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhafdm$mf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60850 |
On 23/04/15 09:56, Noob wrote: > Hello Richard, > > On 23/04/2015 09:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> simboard.c:5:5: warning: no previous prototype for ‘die’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] >> >> The line under consideration was: >> >> int die(int sides) >> >> which *IS* a prototype! The compiler is telling me that this is the >> first prototype it's seen for this function. What am I supposed to do >> with that information - alert the media? >> >> On the other hand, do I want to suppress this message? Heck no. If I >> actually /use/ a function without a prototype, I want the compiler to >> tell me. >> >> Can I improve the code to remove the warning? Well, experimentation >> shows that I could write: >> >> int foo(int); >> int foo(int x) >> >> every time, but I'm not convinced that this is "improved". It's just one more maintenance chore. > > You didn't specify compiler, version, and compilation options. > (I'm using gcc 4.8.2) 4.6.3 - the compilation options are the ones I always use for development. Normally, I don't have this problem, but this morning I got eight spurious diagnostic messages in just a hundred lines of code, immediately after a long clc discussion about such messages. It is coincidental, by the way. The program was not constructed with a view to forming a part of the argument (in fact, had that been my intent, I doubt very much whether I could have intentionally constructed such a fine example). > > First of all, please note that -Wmissing-prototypes is neither > in -Wall nor in -Wextra (it has to be explicitly requested). Sure. And of course I do explicitly request that diagnostic message by default (i.e. my Makefile generator writes into into my CFLAGS), because I want very much to know whether I'm using a function without a valid prototype in scope. I wasn't, but I got the warning anyway. But I take note of your documentation ref. And, as it turns out, the purpose of the diagnostic message seems to bear little relation to its name. In fact, its documented intended meaning makes it unfit for any purpose that I can see. What we need is a diagnostic message that tells us whether a function prototype /conflicts/ with a prior prototype, and one that tells us whether we are calling a function without a valid prototype available. We don't need one to tell us that we're writing a function. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 11:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87618n871g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #60841 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: <snip> > Having just devoted two whole paragraphs to explaining why this had > nothing whatsoever to do with spurious diagnostics (nothing could have > been further from my mind), I will now show you the diagnostics, all > of which I consider spurious: > > simboard.c:5:5: warning: no previous prototype for ‘die’ > [-Wmissing-prototypes] > > The line under consideration was: > > int die(int sides) > > which *IS* a prototype! The compiler is telling me that this is the > first prototype it's seen for this function. What am I supposed to do > with that information - alert the media? I'm aware of a long related thread which I have not studied, but this baffles me. Presumably you asked for this warning, so why are you now objecting to it? From man gcc: "Warn if a global function is defined without a previous prototype declaration. This warning is issued even if the definition itself provides a prototype. Use this option to detect global functions that do not have a matching prototype declaration in a header file." It's doing what you asked for. > On the other hand, do I want to suppress this message? Heck no. If I > actually /use/ a function without a prototype, I want the compiler to > tell me. What's the connection? Omitting -Wmissing-prototypes won't prevent that very important warning. <snip> > simboard.c: In function ‘die’: > simboard.c:7:3: warning: conversion to ‘int’ from ‘double’ may alter > its value [-Wconversion] > > Here's the line: > return 1 + sides * (rand() / (RAND_MAX + 1.0)); > > This is very much along the lines of the hypothetical "adding two > unsigned integers may result in a value lower than either operand", > which was thought to be so ridiculous in a recent thread. This line is > idiomatic, and there is no need whatsoever to change it. Idiomatic, but not 100% safe. On systems where the code can go wrong (i.e. when RAND_MAX + 1.0 == RAND_MAX), you would hope for a better error, but something is better than nothing. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 12:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhak0j$h9p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60862 |
On 23/04/15 11:37, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > <snip> >> Having just devoted two whole paragraphs to explaining why this had >> nothing whatsoever to do with spurious diagnostics (nothing could have >> been further from my mind), I will now show you the diagnostics, all >> of which I consider spurious: >> >> simboard.c:5:5: warning: no previous prototype for ‘die’ >> [-Wmissing-prototypes] >> >> The line under consideration was: >> >> int die(int sides) >> >> which *IS* a prototype! The compiler is telling me that this is the >> first prototype it's seen for this function. What am I supposed to do >> with that information - alert the media? > > I'm aware of a long related thread which I have not studied, but this > baffles me. Presumably you asked for this warning, so why are you now > objecting to it? Yes, I asked for it. Why? Cargo-cult accumulation of warnings (embarrassing but true). Now that I understand the warning message more thoroughly, I've decided I can easily live without it. :-) More importantly... > <snip> >> simboard.c: In function ‘die’: >> simboard.c:7:3: warning: conversion to ‘int’ from ‘double’ may alter >> its value [-Wconversion] >> >> Here's the line: >> return 1 + sides * (rand() / (RAND_MAX + 1.0)); >> >> This is very much along the lines of the hypothetical "adding two >> unsigned integers may result in a value lower than either operand", >> which was thought to be so ridiculous in a recent thread. This line is >> idiomatic, and there is no need whatsoever to change it. > > Idiomatic, but not 100% safe. On systems where the code can go wrong > (i.e. when RAND_MAX + 1.0 == RAND_MAX), you would hope for a better > error, but something is better than nothing. That's an interesting angle that I hadn't considered. On such a system, RAND_MAX would have, I think, to be at least ten decimal digits. In fact, on my system it /is/ ten decimal digits - it's 2^31 - 1 - but a quick test reveals that RAND_MAX + 1.0 != RAND_MAX right here, anyway. On a system such as you describe, with a decent PRNG, the code would still succeed (at least) 99.99999999% of the time! That doesn't make it /right/, obviously. An actuary of my acquaintance (hi James) would describe such code as "sweet" - meaning that it isn't actually right, but that nobody else would ever, ever know. :-) I'm not advocating ignoring the problem, however. An assertion might be in order (for real code, at any rate). -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 12:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mhaigv$bq1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60841 |
On 23/04/2015 09:09, Richard Heathfield wrote: > It was sufficiently early in the morning that this rather bland > assertion struck me as being curious, and I resolved (in my sleepy way) > to test it. So I spent five contented and rather sleepy minutes writing > a C program to confirm the obvious fact that the average 2D6 roll is 7 > by playing a million games of "no snakes or ladders" on a rather large > board and seeing how often each square got landed on. OT remark :-) The expected value (in the mathematical sense, EV) of a discrete random variable is the probability-weighted average of all possible values. Even simpler for a uniform distribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29 (1+2+3+4+5+6) / 6 = 3.5 Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 08:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhapjb$6kg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60841 |
On 04/23/2015 03:09 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: ... > simboard.c:5:5: warning: no previous prototype for ‘die’ > [-Wmissing-prototypes] > > The line under consideration was: > > int die(int sides) > > which *IS* a prototype! The compiler is telling me that this is the > first prototype it's seen for this function. What am I supposed to do > with that information - alert the media? You have two options: If the function is used only in the same module, declare it static. This has a couple of advantages. It enables a warning message if the function is never actually used in that same module, and it prevents the function's name from polluting the space of names with external linkage. If the function is used in modules other than the one it is used in, there should be a single declaration of the function in a separate header file, and that file should be #included in every module where that function is used. Less obviously, but very important: it should also be #included in the file where the function is defined. Putting it there will provoke a diagnostic if the header file's declaration is incompatible with the function definition. I think both things are improvements over the original code (though the second case is far more important than the first), and either one will make the warning message go away. I'm in full agreement with all of the other cases you discuss. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred K <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e0418c8-129a-4e55-b433-99cc8055652a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60841 |
On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 12:10:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote: > In rec.puzzles, I was reading that the probability of hitting any square > on a sufficiently large board converges to 1/7th (assuming you're > rolling two fair six-sided dice to determine your progress along the board). > > It was sufficiently early in the morning that this rather bland > assertion struck me as being curious, and I resolved (in my sleepy way) > to test it. So I spent five contented and rather sleepy minutes writing > a C program to confirm the obvious fact that the average 2D6 roll is 7 > by playing a million games of "no snakes or ladders" on a rather large > board and seeing how often each square got landed on. > > Having just devoted two whole paragraphs to explaining why this had > nothing whatsoever to do with spurious diagnostics (nothing could have > been further from my mind), I will now show you the diagnostics, all of > which I consider spurious: > > simboard.c:5:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'die' > [-Wmissing-prototypes] > > The line under consideration was: > > int die(int sides) > > which *IS* a prototype! The compiler is telling me that this is the > first prototype it's seen for this function. What am I supposed to do > with that information - alert the media? > > On the other hand, do I want to suppress this message? Heck no. If I > actually /use/ a function without a prototype, I want the compiler to > tell me. > > Can I improve the code to remove the warning? Well, experimentation > shows that I could write: > > int foo(int); > int foo(int x) > > every time, but I'm not convinced that this is "improved". It's just one > more maintenance chore. > > simboard.c: In function 'die': > simboard.c:7:3: warning: conversion to 'int' from 'double' may alter its > value [-Wconversion] > > Here's the line: > return 1 + sides * (rand() / (RAND_MAX + 1.0)); > > This is very much along the lines of the hypothetical "adding two > unsigned integers may result in a value lower than either operand", > which was thought to be so ridiculous in a recent thread. This line is > idiomatic, and there is no need whatsoever to change it. > > simboard.c: At top level: > simboard.c:10:8: warning: no previous prototype for 'mean' > [-Wmissing-prototypes] > simboard.c:21:8: warning: no previous prototype for 'stddev' > [-Wmissing-prototypes] > simboard.c:34:6: warning: no previous prototype for 'minimaxi' > [-Wmissing-prototypes] > > All of these are "gosh, this is the first time I've seen this prototype" > messages. > > simboard.c: In function 'minimaxi': > simboard.c:38:3: warning: negative integer implicitly converted to > unsigned type [-Wsign-conversion] > > I have a pointer to an unsigned long, which I wish to set to the lowest > value in a range of data. Here's the setup line before the loop: > > *low = -1; > > Unsigned integer arithmetic *guarantees* that this will assign to *low > the largest possible unsigned long value. (Of course, the idea is that, > in the loop, it will be reset to any lower value encountered.) > > The warning is 100% correct. Do I want to turn it off? No, because I'd > like to know whether I'm doing that sort of thing accidentally. But do I > want to change the code? No. The code as written is perfectly clear, and > needs no rewriting. A cast would be pointless obscurantism. > > simboard.c: In function 'main': > simboard.c:79:19: warning: conversion to 'size_t' from 'int' may change > the sign of the result [-Wsign-conversion] > simboard.c:80:19: warning: conversion to 'size_t' from 'int' may change > the sign of the result [-Wsign-conversion] > > Perfectly true, except that it won't. Here are the lines: > > score += die(6); > score += die(6); > > The score object is indeed an unsigned type, but it's set to 0 inside > the loop where it's used, and then we add a couple of values in the > range 1 to 6 to it, so the biggest value it's going to reach is 12000 or > so (because that's how big the board is), so it can't ever wrap. > > Do I want to suppress the warning? No, I'd like to be told about such > issues. Does the warning indicate an actual problem with this code? No. > Should I change the code to remove the warning? This is perhaps the > closest candidate for a change in the whole program, but even then I'm > very much in two minds about it. The obvious candidates for change are: > > 1) change score to a signed type - but it's used as an index into an > array, so that's not so bright an idea > 2) change die so that it returns an unsigned type - better, but what if > I had dice marked up with -3 to +2, say? The unsigned type then becomes > an unspoken assumption. If the dice can have negative numbers, then 'score' MUST NOT be unsigned, since the total sum CAN remain negative. If 'score' is used as index into an array, then the design of the program is such that the dice MUST NOT have negative values. -- Fred Kleinschmidt <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhb2hs$as6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60898 |
On 23/04/15 15:39, Fred K wrote: > On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 12:10:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote: <snip> >> The obvious candidates for change are: >> >> 1) change score to a signed type - but it's used as an index into an >> array, so that's not so bright an idea >> 2) change die so that it returns an unsigned type - better, but what if >> I had dice marked up with -3 to +2, say? The unsigned type then becomes >> an unspoken assumption. > > If the dice can have negative numbers, then 'score' MUST NOT be unsigned, > since the total sum CAN remain negative. It would be a mild abuse of unsigned integer arithmetic, but it could be done as long as the indexing into the array were to be calculated modulo the array size. -- 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 | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 12:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55392133.3060308@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #60904 |
On 04/23/2015 11:20 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: ... > It would be a mild abuse of unsigned integer arithmetic, but it could be > done as long as the indexing into the array were to be calculated modulo > the array size. Another alternative is used in some languages I know of: a negative subscript refers to the first element of the array, a subscript equal to or larger than the number of elements in the array refers to the last element of the array. I've even seen algorithms written specifically for such languages which explicitly relied upon this behavior to simplify the algorithm - equivalent C code would have had to explicitly test for those cases. Those languages don't actually avoid the test - they just make it implicit in the subscript operation, wasting time when the code is written to render those tests unnecessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 01:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7be65b03-3858-4e5b-96f2-823d40368a60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60841 |
Two nitpicks.
On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 2:10:02 PM UTC+7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> *low = -1;
> The code as written is perfectly clear, and
> needs no rewriting. A cast would be pointless obscurantism.
Au contraire, much clearer (for me) would be, for example
*low = (unsigned)-1;
YMMV. Some codings clear to me are less clear to others;
and, in this case, vice versa. Yes, the cast is implicit
anyway *but only if I'm bothered to check low's type.*
In any event, I fail to see why such a cast is "obscurantism;"
it's rather *the opposite.*
> return 1 + sides * (rand() / (RAND_MAX + 1.0));
That introduces a tiny bias. If RAND_MAX is a power-of-2
the simplest change to get an unbiased variate is
return 1 + sides * ((rand() | 1) / (RAND_MAX + 1.0));
Yes, the bias is miniscule unless RAND_MAX is small.
But nitpicking about random() usage is one thing we do here. :-)
James Dow Allen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 11:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhd501$1kp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60978 |
On 24/04/15 09:40, James Dow Allen wrote: > Two nitpicks. > > On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 2:10:02 PM UTC+7, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> *low = -1; >> The code as written is perfectly clear, and >> needs no rewriting. A cast would be pointless obscurantism. > > Au contraire, much clearer (for me) would be, for example > *low = (unsigned)-1; You make my point well. The cast introduces a bug that is not present without it. If you re-read my OP, you will see that *low is an unsigned long, not an unsigned int. > YMMV. MMDoesIndeedV. > Some codings clear to me are less clear to others; > and, in this case, vice versa. Yes, the cast is implicit > anyway *but only if I'm bothered to check low's type.* For the cast to be valid, you /have/ to check low's type, which you didn't. > In any event, I fail to see why such a cast is "obscurantism;" > it's rather *the opposite.* James, you win some, you lose some. I think you just lost this one. > >> return 1 + sides * (rand() / (RAND_MAX + 1.0)); > > That introduces a tiny bias. If RAND_MAX is a power-of-2 > the simplest change to get an unbiased variate is > return 1 + sides * ((rand() | 1) / (RAND_MAX + 1.0)); > Yes, the bias is miniscule unless RAND_MAX is small. > But nitpicking about random() usage is one thing we do here. :-) Yes, it is. Nevertheless, for this particular (and ludicrously unimportant) exercise, I wasn't even remotely concerned about tiny biases. I'd have been concerned about *big* biases, but even with RAND_MAX at 32767 the bias isn't really all that big. -- 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 | James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f6054a0-87e4-46e5-bddb-e2c54e23a05d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60980 |
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 5:14:33 PM UTC+7, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 24/04/15 09:40, James Dow Allen wrote: > > Au contraire, much clearer (for me) would be, for example > > *low = (unsigned)-1; > > You make my point well. The cast introduces a bug that is not present > without it. If you re-read my OP, you will see that *low is an unsigned > long, not an unsigned int. No. Obviously I would have checked the type of low before changing the code; my post was hurried and illustrative. The point is that writing code correctly ONCE is easier than reading it correctly MANY times. > If RAND_MAX is a power-of-2 Obviously (again) I meant one less than a power-of-two. Geeez. Can't you guys assume I wrote what was intended? :-) :-) James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhdtvq$2dt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61015 |
On 24/04/15 18:02, James Dow Allen wrote: > On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 5:14:33 PM UTC+7, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 24/04/15 09:40, James Dow Allen wrote: >> > Au contraire, much clearer (for me) would be, for example >> > *low = (unsigned)-1; >> >> You make my point well. The cast introduces a bug that is not present >> without it. If you re-read my OP, you will see that *low is an unsigned >> long, not an unsigned int. > > No. Obviously I would have checked the type of low > before changing the code; my post was hurried and illustrative. Many code changes are hurried. After such a "simple" change, many people don't even bother to re-test. (I know it, you know it.) This hurried code change introduced a bug. > The point is that writing code correctly ONCE is > easier than reading it correctly MANY times. True enough, but there is no substitute for knowing the language. The concept of reduction modulo (<TYPE>_MAX + 1) for unsigned integer types is integral to a proper understanding of C - unlike, say, the rote learning of p53 of K&R2; I wouldn't expect any C programmer to know the precedence table off by heart (especially as it is only illustrative, not a formal statement of how the rules are constructed), so I am quite in favour of adding parentheses where they clarify the intent of the author. But I *would* expect C programmers to know that setting an unsigned integer object's value to -1 would result in a reduction into the appropriate range in the obvious manner. Once you add the cast, you have to convince yourself that it's correct, /every/ time you read the code (because casts are tricksy beasts, and are the source of many a bug). As you say, writing code correctly ONCE is easier than reading it correctly MANY times, so it's better to leave the cast out completely. And, if I were unkind, I would reiterate that it has the added advantage of not introducing a bug. But I'm not unkind, so I won't say that. Oh, I already did. Oops. ;-) <snip> -- 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]
Page 2 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web