Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #161260 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-06 13:16 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-06-17 19:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 391 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 13:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-06 15:27 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 06:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 18:06 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-06 06:34 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 16:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 14:59 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-06 18:58 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-06 21:12 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 21:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 21:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 15:13 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 23:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 17:02 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:42 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 19:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-07 17:15 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 20:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 22:17 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 21:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 13:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 13:36 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 08:52 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 11:06 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 13:25 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 13:00 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 07:25 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 16:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-07 16:15 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 17:53 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 19:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-07 22:26 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 00:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 17:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 11:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 11:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 19:57 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 15:10 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-06 14:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 16:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-06 14:20 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-06-06 15:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-06-08 08:06 -0600
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 07:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-08 17:09 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 16:00 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 17:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 18:59 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 00:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 16:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-09 11:40 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 17:36 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 17:48 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 20:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 23:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 11:14 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 12:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 15:30 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 15:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 16:55 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-10 17:23 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 20:47 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 17:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 09:52 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-11 11:25 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 12:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-11 21:14 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-11 19:46 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-12 00:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 22:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 23:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-11 23:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-12 00:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 01:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-12 00:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 11:08 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-12 16:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 18:36 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 13:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 12:42 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-12 14:13 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-10 15:16 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 16:45 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-10 16:56 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 19:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 22:37 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-09 15:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 23:18 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-06-08 09:25 -0600
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 16:13 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-06-08 21:43 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 15:03 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-06-24 10:33 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-24 13:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-01 17:57 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-11 00:26 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 09:49 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-27 15:47 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 10:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-07-27 23:48 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 00:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 18:30 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 13:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 14:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 15:44 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 15:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 17:49 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 17:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 23:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 16:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 19:20 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 11:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-29 17:10 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 10:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 19:07 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 11:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 19:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 12:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 15:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 16:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 19:49 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:03 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 23:16 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 01:51 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-31 13:42 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 14:56 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-31 19:33 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 19:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-31 21:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 23:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-08-01 00:43 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:54 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 13:36 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 13:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 14:24 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 16:08 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 16:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-04 16:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 18:40 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 19:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-07 10:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-07 17:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 08:51 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 15:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-08-08 17:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 20:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 20:21 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 20:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 22:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 22:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 22:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 23:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-09 01:46 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 10:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 03:59 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 13:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-09 16:08 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 16:51 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-09 16:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 17:09 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-08 15:30 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 00:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 20:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-09 15:05 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 23:48 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 16:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 01:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 17:52 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 11:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 11:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 20:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 13:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 03:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 16:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 11:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 20:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 22:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 15:32 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-08-09 17:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 18:27 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 01:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 12:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 02:04 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 09:42 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 17:19 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 20:04 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 20:19 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 16:51 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 21:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 19:10 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 16:08 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-08 19:56 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 14:35 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-10 21:41 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 15:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 23:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 20:15 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 08:34 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 11:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 03:46 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 14:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 07:26 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 15:04 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 03:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 13:55 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 07:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 13:44 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-10-01 22:40 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-02 01:37 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 14:29 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 18:54 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 20:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 20:04 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 17:04 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 11:09 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 13:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 08:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 15:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 16:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 16:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 18:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-08-11 11:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 19:45 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 15:55 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 22:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-11 22:47 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:00 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 10:29 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 12:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 16:28 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 08:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-12 15:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 17:55 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 16:59 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 19:44 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 19:02 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 20:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 11:10 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 23:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 16:52 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:22 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 19:51 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 13:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 16:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 18:45 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 22:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 21:09 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:30 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 10:39 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 12:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 16:44 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 17:20 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 20:00 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 00:44 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 10:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 17:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 11:41 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 16:00 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ike Naar <ike@rie.sdf.org> - 2021-08-09 05:46 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:38 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:57 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 10:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-08-04 11:48 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 19:34 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 19:18 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 22:35 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 23:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 01:46 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 17:20 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 20:24 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:55 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 16:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-07-30 09:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 18:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 17:38 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 20:10 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 21:50 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:44 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 00:08 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 16:31 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 19:57 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 23:28 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 15:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 20:08 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 22:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 15:34 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 00:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 16:36 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 02:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 21:14 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 11:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 15:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 15:48 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:14 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 16:25 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:52 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 16:50 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 18:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-08-01 01:38 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 11:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-08-01 19:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 11:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 14:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2021-08-01 19:27 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-30 23:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 02:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 20:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-31 02:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 21:23 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 11:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 12:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-07-31 21:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:54 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 10:47 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 20:22 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Dill <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 06:09 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 14:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-29 13:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 16:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-30 05:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 17:14 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-28 02:01 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 19:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 12:32 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 12:41 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 09:02 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 15:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 10:19 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 15:58 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2021-07-30 11:28 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-06 05:20 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-06 05:09 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-11 12:33 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-16 19:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-17 11:50 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 12:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-17 17:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 13:49 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 13:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 15:05 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 14:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 18:35 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 18:14 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 11:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-17 08:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-17 16:22 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 17:57 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-17 17:53 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 21:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-17 17:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-18 11:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-17 19:30 +0200
Page 10 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 20 Next page →
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-09 00:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <seppk7$amr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162260 |
On 08/08/2021 23:30, Michael S wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:17:59 AM UTC+3, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>> Because you seem keen to put the blame elsewhere.
>> Because I think the blame must be elsewhere, but I'm not going to
>> install Windows (and all the other stuff one might need) just to find
>> out.
>
> That, probably, wouldn't help.
> Bart and DFS are unique people with unique capabilities.
> DFS more so, but Bart's ability to hit roadbles that almost nobody else hit also shouldn't be underestimated.
> Out of interest, I logged into machine where I have several cygwin installations
> (all coming with various versions of Altera Nios II EDS suit) ranging from 2009 to 2018.
> I compiles Bart's program and run it. I looked a bit slow, but not dramatically so.
> I timed it with time. Depending on the version, time varied between 90 and 370 msec.
> Yes, it's very slow (under MSYS2, on my significantly older and slower home desktop, it took 20ms,
> of which, I'd guess, more than half is loading program rather than running it) but not *nearly* as slow
> as reported by Bart and DFS.
>
> But then I figured out how to make it *really* slow.
> First, you should find *very* old cygwin. Of all my installations only one from 2009 is old enough.
> Second, you should compile/link with flag '-mno-cygwin".
Cygwin and MSYS2? I'm talking about plain Windows. I've no idea what's
going on in those products; maybe they use different console programs or
different C runtimes from those used from plain Windows.
Third, you should run the executive in normal windows command window
rather than in cygwing window.
> Only then you will be able to see the slowness.
> It seems, this particular combination of tools and environment dislikes very long lines.
>
> It's still not guaranteed, that you'll see times, reported by Bart. It depends on many factors, most
> importantly, on the exact size of your command window.
> Personally, I had never seen more than 2.5 or 3 seconds.
> But that difference , at least, can be explained by difference in speed between my hardware
> (4-5 y.o. Haswell with 32GB of RAM and decent SSD) and the hardware used by Bart.
Try these two versions:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
for (int i=0; i<2000; ++i) {
printf("XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n");
}
}
--------------------------------------------
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
for (int i=0; i<2000; ++i) {
for (int j=0; j<79; ++j) printf("X");
puts("");
}
}
The first generally runs in 1.7 seconds (display is 60 rows of 100
chars), the second in 25-26 seconds, using bcc/tcc/DMC/CL compilers.
But with gcc/clang, both run in 25-26 seconds (lccwin took 20 seconds)
What's going on in those latter compilers? You tell me.
My idea was that gcc ends up calling fprintf a character at a time, or
maybe fputc (it doesn't import printf).
BTW I don't appreciate your getting personal. I'm only reporting what
I've actually observed.
Remarks along the lines of 'Ah, well Windows is dead slow anyway, what
difference does another magnitude slow make' are not helpful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-08 20:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Wg_PI.6656$NQ1.5159@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #162260 |
On 8/8/2021 6:30 PM, Michael S wrote:
> Bart and DFS are unique people with unique capabilities. DFS more so,
What are you babbling about?
> but Bart's ability to hit roadbles that almost nobody else hit also
> shouldn't be underestimated.
There's no reason for anyone to get different results that what Bart and
I experienced.
Running Win10 21H1. Wanted a better compiler than tcc (0.9.27), so I
installed the gcc from:
https://github.com/brechtsanders/winlibs_mingw/releases/download/11.2.0-12.0.1-9.0.0-r1/winlibs-x86_64-posix-seh-gcc-11.2.0-mingw-w64-9.0.0-r1.7z
(gcc 11.2.0)
$gcc -Wall source.c -o prog.exe
created a huge executable that ran printf() very slowly.
Tried another one:
https://github.com/skeeto/w64devkit/releases/tag/v1.8.0 (gcc 11.1.0)
also created a huge executable that ran printf() very slowly.
gcc Windows: slow 3.15s
tcc Windows: quick 0.24s
gcc Linux : incredibly quick (like 0.01, no time to blink)
And that's just 726 words.
Code is standard printf() stuff I think:
//get max number of columns to print on each line
//tcols = number of columns on terminal screen
//add 2 to longword to account for spaces
int maxcols = ((int)(tcols/(longword+2)));
int cols=1;
for(int i=0;i<matchcnt;i++)
{
printf("%-*s ", longword, matchwords[i]);
cols++;
if(cols>maxcols) {
printf("\n");
cols=1;
}
}
Remove the column breaks and it's just as slow.
> Out of interest, I logged into machine where I have several cygwin
> installations (all coming with various versions of Altera Nios II EDS
> suit) ranging from 2009 to 2018. I compiles Bart's program and run
> it. I looked a bit slow, but not dramatically so. I timed it with
> time. Depending on the version, time varied between 90 and 370 msec.
> Yes, it's very slow (under MSYS2, on my significantly older and
> slower home desktop, it took 20ms, of which, I'd guess, more than
> half is loading program rather than running it) but not *nearly* as
> slow as reported by Bart and DFS.
>
> But then I figured out how to make it *really* slow. First, you
> should find *very* old cygwin. Of all my installations only one from
> 2009 is old enough. Second, you should compile/link with flag
> '-mno-cygwin". Third, you should run the executive in normal windows
> command window rather than in cygwing window. Only then you will be
> able to see the slowness. It seems, this particular combination of
> tools and environment dislikes very long lines.
>
> It's still not guaranteed, that you'll see times, reported by Bart.
> It depends on many factors, most importantly, on the exact size of
> your command window.
My code polls the size of the terminal window before printing, to
determine how many columns of the widest word in the result set will fit
cleanly. Whether the window is wide (10 columns) or narrow (5
columns), the gcc Windows printf() is about the same: just over 3
seconds to print 726 words.
I think Kaz Kylheku nailed it: difference in printf() implementation
between tcc and gcc.
> Personally, I had never seen more than 2.5 or 3
> seconds. But that difference , at least, can be explained by
> difference in speed between my hardware (4-5 y.o. Haswell with 32GB
> of RAM and decent SSD) and the hardware used by Bart.
I run an 11-year-old chip: i5-750@2.67GHz, 8GB mem, Mushkin Reactor SSD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-09 01:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94f47c65-5f5f-44d1-bc37-d51155624ae5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #162262 |
On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:03:15 AM UTC+3, DFS wrote:
> On 8/8/2021 6:30 PM, Michael S wrote:
>
> > Bart and DFS are unique people with unique capabilities. DFS more so,
> What are you babbling about?
Your shared love to strange tools that wouldn't in top#5 list of choice of professional and likely not in top#10.
> > but Bart's ability to hit roadbles that almost nobody else hit also
> > shouldn't be underestimated.
> There's no reason for anyone to get different results that what Bart and
> I experienced.
>
> Running Win10 21H1. Wanted a better compiler than tcc (0.9.27), so I
> installed the gcc from:
>
> https://github.com/brechtsanders/winlibs_mingw/releases/download/11.2.0-12.0.1-9.0.0-r1/winlibs-x86_64-posix-seh-gcc-11.2.0-mingw-w64-9.0.0-r1.7z
> (gcc 11.2.0)
That loooks like mingw-64. The same compiler/libraries that I tried first and that finished the task in 20 msec - 1000 times faster than you (or Bart) reported.
AFAIK, it's C RTL is based on Microsoft's DLL that was originally distributed with VS2013.
Recently, they (MSYS2 maintainers) added a variant of library that is called ucrt-something,
probably based on more up to date Microsoft's DLL. I didn't try it yet.
I didn't see the slowness because I was running it from msys2 command window, i.e. the same environment in which that it was tested by maintainers.
When I take generated exe file and try to run it in regular windows command window (cmd.exe)
or in powershell window then I see extreme slowness - order of 4.5 sec in cmd.exe and 6.5 sec in powereshell.
When I changed the size of cmd window to "traditional" defaults of 80x25, it slowed down to 6 seconds.
>
> $gcc -Wall source.c -o prog.exe
>
> created a huge executable that ran printf() very slowly.
>
Huge executive is due to presence of symbols. gcc -s (symbols stripped) is just big, not huge.
Slowness is due to interaction between startup code in mingw64 library and windows command prompt environment,
probably not provisioned by maintainers since they expect their console programs to be run under msys2.
As said by several people here, under such combo stdout behaves as unbuffered. So, 160,000 system calls.
By themselves, 160,000 system calls are not particularly slow, but Windows console subsystem seems obliged
to redraw the whole window each time the character does not fit in window width.
Or, may be, even more often, may be, once per character.
So far I didn't figure out how to find exact details.
>
> Tried another one:
>
> https://github.com/skeeto/w64devkit/releases/tag/v1.8.0 (gcc 11.1.0)
>
If you want to use msys2-maintained gcc compiler then I strongly recommend
to stick to "official" msys2 distribution.
https://www.msys2.org/
> also created a huge executable that ran printf() very slowly.
>
> gcc Windows: slow 3.15s
> tcc Windows: quick 0.24s
> gcc Linux : incredibly quick (like 0.01, no time to blink)
>
0.01 I'd call o.k. rather than "incredibly quick"
> And that's just 726 words.
>
>
>
> Code is standard printf() stuff I think:
>
> //get max number of columns to print on each line
> //tcols = number of columns on terminal screen
> //add 2 to longword to account for spaces
>
> int maxcols = ((int)(tcols/(longword+2)));
> int cols=1;
> for(int i=0;i<matchcnt;i++)
> {
> printf("%-*s ", longword, matchwords[i]);
> cols++;
> if(cols>maxcols) {
> printf("\n");
> cols=1;
> }
> }
>
> Remove the column breaks and it's just as slow.
> > Out of interest, I logged into machine where I have several cygwin
> > installations (all coming with various versions of Altera Nios II EDS
> > suit) ranging from 2009 to 2018. I compiles Bart's program and run
> > it. I looked a bit slow, but not dramatically so. I timed it with
> > time. Depending on the version, time varied between 90 and 370 msec.
> > Yes, it's very slow (under MSYS2, on my significantly older and
> > slower home desktop, it took 20ms, of which, I'd guess, more than
> > half is loading program rather than running it) but not *nearly* as
> > slow as reported by Bart and DFS.
> >
> > But then I figured out how to make it *really* slow. First, you
> > should find *very* old cygwin. Of all my installations only one from
> > 2009 is old enough. Second, you should compile/link with flag
> > '-mno-cygwin". Third, you should run the executive in normal windows
> > command window rather than in cygwing window. Only then you will be
> > able to see the slowness. It seems, this particular combination of
> > tools and environment dislikes very long lines.
> >
> > It's still not guaranteed, that you'll see times, reported by Bart.
> > It depends on many factors, most importantly, on the exact size of
> > your command window.
> My code polls the size of the terminal window before printing, to
> determine how many columns of the widest word in the result set will fit
> cleanly. Whether the window is wide (10 columns) or narrow (5
> columns), the gcc Windows printf() is about the same: just over 3
> seconds to print 726 words.
>
> I think Kaz Kylheku nailed it: difference in printf() implementation
> between tcc and gcc.
> > Personally, I had never seen more than 2.5 or 3
> > seconds. But that difference , at least, can be explained by
> > difference in speed between my hardware (4-5 y.o. Haswell with 32GB
> > of RAM and decent SSD) and the hardware used by Bart.
> I run an 11-year-old chip: i5-...@2.67GHz, 8GB mem, Mushkin Reactor SSD.
As written above, now I found a way (on somewhat slower HW then the one used originally) to increase the time to 6 seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-09 15:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k0fQI.22200$Fx8.6170@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #162265 |
On 8/9/2021 4:29 AM, Michael S wrote: > On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:03:15 AM UTC+3, DFS wrote: >> On 8/8/2021 6:30 PM, Michael S wrote: >> >>> Bart and DFS are unique people with unique capabilities. DFS >>> more so, >> What are you babbling about? > > Your shared love to strange tools that wouldn't in top#5 list of > choice of professional and likely not in top#10. tcc was begat from contest-winning obfuscated C code. https://bellard.org/otcc/ Can gcc or any other 'professional' product beat that? I think not. >>> but Bart's ability to hit roadbles that almost nobody else hit >>> also shouldn't be underestimated. >> There's no reason for anyone to get different results that what >> Bart and I experienced. >> >> Running Win10 21H1. Wanted a better compiler than tcc (0.9.27), so >> I installed the gcc from: >> >> https://github.com/brechtsanders/winlibs_mingw/releases/download/11.2.0-12.0.1-9.0.0-r1/winlibs-x86_64-posix-seh-gcc-11.2.0-mingw-w64-9.0.0-r1.7z >> >> (gcc 11.2.0) > > That loooks like mingw-64. The same compiler/libraries that I tried > first and that finished the task in 20 msec - 1000 times faster than > you (or Bart) reported. I ran mine in a Windows cmd shell. > AFAIK, it's C RTL is based on Microsoft's DLL that was originally > distributed with VS2013. Recently, they (MSYS2 maintainers) added a > variant of library that is called ucrt-something, probably based on > more up to date Microsoft's DLL. I didn't try it yet. > > I didn't see the slowness because I was running it from msys2 > command window, i.e. the same environment in which that it was tested > by maintainers. When I take generated exe file and try to run it in > regular windows command window (cmd.exe) or in powershell window > then I see extreme slowness - order of 4.5 sec in cmd.exe and 6.5 sec > in powereshell. When I changed the size of cmd window to > "traditional" defaults of 80x25, it slowed down to 6 seconds. You might look into ConEmu for Windows, a most excellent terminal program. You can load up many different shells, including MSYS2 and WSL Bash, very easily. https://conemu.github.io/en/Tasks.html#add-default-tasks >> $gcc -Wall source.c -o prog.exe >> >> created a huge executable that ran printf() very slowly. >> > > Huge executive is due to presence of symbols. gcc -s (symbols > stripped) is just big, not huge. gcc: 85435 tcc: 15360 5.5x larger than the tcc version is huge. > Slowness is due to interaction between startup code in mingw64 > library and windows command prompt environment, probably not > provisioned by maintainers since they expect their console programs > to be run under msys2. OK. > As said by several people here, under such combo stdout behaves as > unbuffered. So, 160,000 system calls. By themselves, 160,000 system > calls are not particularly slow, but Windows console subsystem seems > obliged to redraw the whole window each time the character does not > fit in window width. Or, may be, even more often, may be, once per > character. So far I didn't figure out how to find exact details. > >> >> Tried another one: >> >> https://github.com/skeeto/w64devkit/releases/tag/v1.8.0 (gcc >> 11.1.0) >> > > If you want to use msys2-maintained gcc compiler then I strongly > recommend to stick to "official" msys2 distribution. > https://www.msys2.org/ Haven't used it in a while, but I'll give it another try. <snipped rest>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-09 23:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sesbbk$63q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162265 |
On 09/08/2021 09:29, Michael S wrote: > On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:03:15 AM UTC+3, DFS wrote: >> On 8/8/2021 6:30 PM, Michael S wrote: >> >>> Bart and DFS are unique people with unique capabilities. DFS more so, >> What are you babbling about? > > Your shared love to strange tools that wouldn't in top#5 list of choice of professional and likely not in top#10. You just don't get it. When I drive to the shops I like to use my hatchback, I don't need a 40-ton truck, or a 747, which are how big and cumbersome those professional tools appear to me. (And if younger I'd jump on my bike.) Who cares about the top 10 anyway? Where was the top 10 when I needed a tiny, fast HLL language for my 8-bit micros which actually ran ON those same micros? I've used my own languages ever since. And when I have to play with C, I prefer my own small C compiler; you know, that one with the faster printf than gcc/tdm. > That loooks like mingw-64. The same compiler/libraries that I tried first and that finished the task in 20 msec - 1000 times faster than you (or Bart) reported. A figure which I think you helped to debunk. But the issue at hand is what to about the gcc version that runs under the exact same environment as tcc. > AFAIK, it's C RTL is based on Microsoft's DLL that was originally distributed with VS2013. > Recently, they (MSYS2 maintainers) added a variant of library that is called ucrt-something, > probably based on more up to date Microsoft's DLL. I didn't try it yet. > > I didn't see the slowness because I was running it from msys2 command window, i.e. the same environment in which that it was tested by maintainers. > When I take generated exe file and try to run it in regular windows command window (cmd.exe) > or in powershell window then I see extreme slowness - order of 4.5 sec in cmd.exe and 6.5 sec in powereshell. > When I changed the size of cmd window to "traditional" defaults of 80x25, it slowed down to 6 seconds. OK, that's more helpful. Now run tcc in the same way, or just use any means to write the equivalent text to a file, and use TYPE to display it. If that's much faster than doing it from the gcc-compiled program, then you've reproduced the problem. We don't need it 1000 times faster, just as fast as TYPE. > >> >> $gcc -Wall source.c -o prog.exe >> >> created a huge executable that ran printf() very slowly. >> > > Huge executive is due to presence of symbols. gcc -s (symbols stripped) is just big, not huge. > > Slowness is due to interaction between startup code in mingw64 library and windows command prompt environment, > probably not provisioned by maintainers since they expect their console programs to be run under msys2. > > As said by several people here, under such combo stdout behaves as unbuffered. So, 160,000 system calls. > By themselves, 160,000 system calls are not particularly slow, but Windows console subsystem seems obliged > to redraw the whole window each time the character does not fit in window width. Huh? The timings I get strongly suggest that something that should be done per-string, is getting done per-character. Nothing to do with window width, which is anyway a long way the other side of the C runtime library they both end up calling. >> gcc Windows: slow 3.15s >> tcc Windows: quick 0.24s >> gcc Linux : incredibly quick (like 0.01, no time to blink) >> > > 0.01 I'd call o.k. rather than "incredibly quick" So what is the upper limit of characters per second that can be genuinely displayed in a Linux terminal window? Assuming a character is a bitmapped 12x16 font, on a 24-bit display, then writing one character cell (forget antialiasing and such) involves writing 600 bytes to video memory. The 23Mcps figure of Ben's (I think 7ms to do 160K characters), would involve writing 13GB/s to video memory. And that's without handling scrolling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-09 16:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87y29afah5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162280 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> And when I have to play with C, I prefer my own small C compiler; you
> know, that one with the faster printf than gcc/tdm.
Really? Your *compiler* implements printf? Not the runtime library?
Yes, the distinction matters.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 01:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <seshh0$onu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162281 |
On 10/08/2021 00:45, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> And when I have to play with C, I prefer my own small C compiler; you >> know, that one with the faster printf than gcc/tdm. > > Really? Your *compiler* implements printf? Not the runtime library? > > Yes, the distinction matters. > > [...] > Not to most normal people, where a language and its implementation is just expected to provide print facilities. The same goes for C. And no the distinction doesn't really matter unless you come from the Unix world, which apparently 'owns' C and gets to decide all this stuff. The 'faster' printf I'm refering to is the one inside msvcrt.dll, which my gcc/tdm and clang/llvm don't appear capable of using without some arm-twisting. (Would it be that remarkable to implement a function like 'printf'? That's the sort of thing I used to do all the time. But since it's available in msvcrt.dll, there's no point in repeating stuff I've done innumerable times.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-09 17:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87r1f2f7e1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162282 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/08/2021 00:45, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> And when I have to play with C, I prefer my own small C compiler; you
>>> know, that one with the faster printf than gcc/tdm.
>> Really? Your *compiler* implements printf? Not the runtime
>> library?
>> Yes, the distinction matters.
>> [...]
>
> Not to most normal people, where a language and its implementation is
> just expected to provide print facilities.
>
> The same goes for C. And no the distinction doesn't really matter
> unless you come from the Unix world, which apparently 'owns' C and
> gets to decide all this stuff.
>
> The 'faster' printf I'm refering to is the one inside msvcrt.dll,
> which my gcc/tdm and clang/llvm don't appear capable of using without
> some arm-twisting.
>
> (Would it be that remarkable to implement a function like 'printf'?
> That's the sort of thing I used to do all the time. But since it's
> available in msvcrt.dll, there's no point in repeating stuff I've done
> innumerable times.)
You continue to pretend not to understand the distinction between a
compiler and an implementation in a thread that demonstrates just how
important that distinction is.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 11:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <setjnn$d4c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162283 |
On 10/08/2021 01:52, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 10/08/2021 00:45, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> And when I have to play with C, I prefer my own small C compiler; you >>>> know, that one with the faster printf than gcc/tdm. >>> Really? Your *compiler* implements printf? Not the runtime >>> library? >>> Yes, the distinction matters. >>> [...] >> >> Not to most normal people, where a language and its implementation is >> just expected to provide print facilities. >> >> The same goes for C. And no the distinction doesn't really matter >> unless you come from the Unix world, which apparently 'owns' C and >> gets to decide all this stuff. >> >> The 'faster' printf I'm refering to is the one inside msvcrt.dll, >> which my gcc/tdm and clang/llvm don't appear capable of using without >> some arm-twisting. >> >> (Would it be that remarkable to implement a function like 'printf'? >> That's the sort of thing I used to do all the time. But since it's >> available in msvcrt.dll, there's no point in repeating stuff I've done >> innumerable times.) > > You continue to pretend not to understand the distinction between a > compiler and an implementation in a thread that demonstrates just how > important that distinction is. > I think the [sub-]thread demonstrates exactly the opposite! The fact is that, outside of Unix (and outside of compilers that originated in Unix or Unix-like systems, or that try and emulate those) a compiler is a whole package. And outside of C, that is generally the case too. Actually, try and do something different, like compiling this program: extern int printf(intptr_t); then gcc/tdm will complain that it it does match what it expects for the BUILT-IN function 'printf'. I am just NOT INTERESTED in the 'distinction'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 11:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87eeb1f9dg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162289 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/08/2021 01:52, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> You continue to pretend not to understand the distinction between a
>> compiler and an implementation in a thread that demonstrates just how
>> important that distinction is.
>
> I think the [sub-]thread demonstrates exactly the opposite!
>
> The fact is that, outside of Unix (and outside of compilers that
> originated in Unix or Unix-like systems, or that try and emulate
> those) a compiler is a whole package.
You use TDM-GCC. Yes, it's a "whole package" by the time you download
it, but it was assembled from independent components.
> And outside of C, that is generally the case too.
>
> Actually, try and do something different, like compiling this program:
>
> extern int printf(intptr_t);
>
> then gcc/tdm will complain that it it does match what it expects for
> the BUILT-IN function 'printf'.
Yes, because it knows what the standard guarantees for the printf
function, not because it knows anything about a particular library
implementation.
> I am just NOT INTERESTED in the 'distinction'.
You're interested enough to argue about it every time someone mentions
it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 20:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <seuil3$3i2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162294 |
On 10/08/2021 19:22, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 10/08/2021 01:52, Keith Thompson wrote: > [...] >>> You continue to pretend not to understand the distinction between a >>> compiler and an implementation in a thread that demonstrates just how >>> important that distinction is. >> >> I think the [sub-]thread demonstrates exactly the opposite! >> >> The fact is that, outside of Unix (and outside of compilers that >> originated in Unix or Unix-like systems, or that try and emulate >> those) a compiler is a whole package. > > You use TDM-GCC. Yes, it's a "whole package" by the time you download > it, but it was assembled from independent components. How many different ones are there (I mean as downloadable, assembled, complete products for other people to use) for plain Windows, and how do they differ? gcc itself probably consists of lots of different components too, written by 100s of people; where does it end? >> And outside of C, that is generally the case too. >> >> Actually, try and do something different, like compiling this program: >> >> extern int printf(intptr_t); >> >> then gcc/tdm will complain that it it does match what it expects for >> the BUILT-IN function 'printf'. > > Yes, because it knows what the standard guarantees for the printf > function, not because it knows anything about a particular library > implementation. > >> I am just NOT INTERESTED in the 'distinction'. > > You're interested enough to argue about it every time someone mentions > it. > Every time someone moans about my casually saying 'gcc' when I mean the entire bundle for plain Windows. (I've even had to start saying 'plain Windows' now because nobody here seems capable of using it without doing it through Cygwin or MSYS2 or WSL.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87y299uis5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162295 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/08/2021 19:22, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 10/08/2021 01:52, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> You continue to pretend not to understand the distinction between a
>>>> compiler and an implementation in a thread that demonstrates just how
>>>> important that distinction is.
>>>
>>> I think the [sub-]thread demonstrates exactly the opposite!
>>>
>>> The fact is that, outside of Unix (and outside of compilers that
>>> originated in Unix or Unix-like systems, or that try and emulate
>>> those) a compiler is a whole package.
>> You use TDM-GCC. Yes, it's a "whole package" by the time you
>> download
>> it, but it was assembled from independent components.
>
> How many different ones are there (I mean as downloadable, assembled,
> complete products for other people to use) for plain Windows, and how
> do they differ?
>
> gcc itself probably consists of lots of different components too,
> written by 100s of people; where does it end?
Explaining this to you is obviously a waste of time.
[...]
>>> And outside of C, that is generally the case too.
>>>
>>> Actually, try and do something different, like compiling this program:
>>>
>>> extern int printf(intptr_t);
>>>
>>> then gcc/tdm will complain that it it does match what it expects for
>>> the BUILT-IN function 'printf'.
>> Yes, because it knows what the standard guarantees for the printf
>> function, not because it knows anything about a particular library
>> implementation.
>>
>>> I am just NOT INTERESTED in the 'distinction'.
>> You're interested enough to argue about it every time someone
>> mentions
>> it.
>
> Every time someone moans about my casually saying 'gcc' when I mean
> the entire bundle for plain Windows.
Yes, because you complain about 'gcc" not implementing printf correctly.
Again, I'm not going to explain again why that's misleading.
> (I've even had to start saying 'plain Windows' now because nobody here
> seems capable of using it without doing it through Cygwin or MSYS2 or
> WSL.)
I usually use Cygwin myself. Of course poeple are going to use examples
they're familiar with. I am obviously capable of using "plain Windows",
since I discussed doing so just recently.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 03:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1617a372-38e2-4729-a058-8f1ca95d5a49n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #162282 |
On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 01:33:47 UTC+1, Bart wrote: > On 10/08/2021 00:45, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes: > > [...] > >> And when I have to play with C, I prefer my own small C compiler; you > >> know, that one with the faster printf than gcc/tdm. > > > > Really? Your *compiler* implements printf? Not the runtime library? > > > > Yes, the distinction matters. > > > > [...] > > > Not to most normal people, where a language and its implementation is > just expected to provide print facilities. > > The same goes for C. And no the distinction doesn't really matter unless > you come from the Unix world, which apparently 'owns' C and gets to > decide all this stuff. > > The 'faster' printf I'm refering to is the one inside msvcrt.dll, which > my gcc/tdm and clang/llvm don't appear capable of using without some > arm-twisting. > > (Would it be that remarkable to implement a function like 'printf'? > That's the sort of thing I used to do all the time. But since it's > available in msvcrt.dll, there's no point in repeating stuff I've done > innumerable times.) > I've got a modern Apple system. I had to install an old version of Xcode because the code base used an old version of boost (always the boost). That broke the commandline version of clang. It couldn't link in the standard runtime library, because of some weird incompatibility and passing flags didn't help. Whilst it was tempting to fiddle with the installation, someone else had written conan scripts to build the code base. I was afraid that I might break this system, then I wouldn't be able to fix it. So yes, a simple "Hello world" program no longer worked. It's a genuine problem with C's way of doing things. The boost problem was eventually fixed and with everything up to date, the link problem disappeared.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 16:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <seu5tf$cvt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162288 |
On 10/08/2021 11:03, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 01:33:47 UTC+1, Bart wrote: >> On 10/08/2021 00:45, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> And when I have to play with C, I prefer my own small C compiler; you >>>> know, that one with the faster printf than gcc/tdm. >>> >>> Really? Your *compiler* implements printf? Not the runtime library? >>> >>> Yes, the distinction matters. >>> >>> [...] >>> >> Not to most normal people, where a language and its implementation is >> just expected to provide print facilities. >> >> The same goes for C. And no the distinction doesn't really matter unless >> you come from the Unix world, which apparently 'owns' C and gets to >> decide all this stuff. >> >> The 'faster' printf I'm refering to is the one inside msvcrt.dll, which >> my gcc/tdm and clang/llvm don't appear capable of using without some >> arm-twisting. >> >> (Would it be that remarkable to implement a function like 'printf'? >> That's the sort of thing I used to do all the time. But since it's >> available in msvcrt.dll, there's no point in repeating stuff I've done >> innumerable times.) >> > I've got a modern Apple system. I had to install an old version of Xcode because > the code base used an old version of boost (always the boost). That broke the > commandline version of clang. It couldn't link in the standard runtime library, > because of some weird incompatibility and passing flags didn't help. > > Whilst it was tempting to fiddle with the installation, someone else had written > conan scripts to build the code base. I was afraid that I might break this system, > then I wouldn't be able to fix it. > > So yes, a simple "Hello world" program no longer worked. It's a genuine problem > with C's way of doing things. The boost problem was eventually fixed and with > everything up to date, the link problem disappeared. > Any language should and usually does provide arrangements for doing i/o. Whether that is done by built-in features, or libraries written in user code, is that not important, provided it is self-contained. (Note that C provides library functions called as though they are ordinary functions, but it was necessary to add variadic arguments to make them work as needed. A little untidy.) In my case, and for console/file destinations, my own runtime (not for C) eventually ends up calling printf or fprintf from the C library, with one of these formats to print a single string or single character: "%s" "%.*s" "*.c" since it handles all the to-string convertions. (Except for floats where it uses one of e, f or g with sprintf; it's too much fiddly work otherwise; I've done it enough times.) That C library is msvcrt.dll which is a component of Windows (or, when I tinkered with Linux, it was libc.so.6 or some such library). So there is no intermediate dependency between my implementation, and the OS, that someone could tinker with. According to Keith, every C implementation consists of assorted components like this: * Possibly, a discrete preprocessor * Compiler * Standard headers * Assembler * Linker * Standard library * Extensions which everyone who ever installs an implementation is expected to obtain from different sources and mix and match to create a custom C system. Which doesn't really happen. Certainly I've never done it. (Apparently Unix systems are different and most of these components 'belong' to the OS, not to a language.) In the case of my C compiler, everything necessary is bundled into one executable, except for the standard library, which comes with the OS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87im0df9l9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162291 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> According to Keith, every C implementation consists of assorted
> components like this:
>
> * Possibly, a discrete preprocessor
> * Compiler
> * Standard headers
> * Assembler
> * Linker
> * Standard library
> * Extensions
>
> which everyone who ever installs an implementation is expected to
> obtain from different sources and mix and match to create a custom C
> system.
That is a lie. I did not say that.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 20:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <seujms$n3r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162293 |
On 10/08/2021 19:17, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> According to Keith, every C implementation consists of assorted >> components like this: >> >> * Possibly, a discrete preprocessor >> * Compiler >> * Standard headers >> * Assembler >> * Linker >> * Standard library >> * Extensions >> >> which everyone who ever installs an implementation is expected to >> obtain from different sources and mix and match to create a custom C >> system. > > That is a lie. I did not say that. You said something like that 5 minutes later: KT: > You use TDM-GCC. Yes, it's a "whole package" by the time you download > it, but it was assembled from independent components. > Here's another post: On 31/07/2021 20:58, Keith Thompson wrote: > "cc" is as driver program that might invoke several different programs, > including a preprocessor, a compiler, an assembler, and a linker. It > was perfectly reasonable for K&R And another: On 31/07/2021 05:14, Keith Thompson wrote: > You very commonly gloss over the distinction between an*implementation* > and a*compiler*. An implementation consists of several components; the > compiler is just one of them. Even if someone doesn't create their own bundle, you imply that they need to be aware of exactly what it comprises. (As though I would have any clue as to what is what: I have two gcc installations; tdm/gcc is 4900 files/215 directories/560MB; the other is DFS's mingw64, 4850 files/195 directories/850MB. Clang is part of an LLVM download which is 370 files/34 directories/1730MB, but I believe it still requires MSVC or MSBUILD tools (I get those confused) for certain parts. I think that MS product is 12300 files/1330 directories/2550MB. My own product is 1 file/1 directory/1MB (0 directories really as you can stick the exe where you want); this one I do have a clue about!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87tujxui9l.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162296 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/08/2021 19:17, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> According to Keith, every C implementation consists of assorted
>>> components like this:
>>>
>>> * Possibly, a discrete preprocessor
>>> * Compiler
>>> * Standard headers
>>> * Assembler
>>> * Linker
>>> * Standard library
>>> * Extensions
>>>
>>> which everyone who ever installs an implementation is expected to
>>> obtain from different sources and mix and match to create a custom C
>>> system.
>> That is a lie. I did not say that.
>
> You said something like that 5 minutes later:
>
> KT:
>> You use TDM-GCC. Yes, it's a "whole package" by the time you download
>> it, but it was assembled from independent components.
I did not say or imply that "everyone who ever installs an
implementation" is required to assemble the components. TDM-GCC is
assembled by the maintainers of TDM-GCC. The end user installs it as a
single package.
> Here's another post:
>
> On 31/07/2021 20:58, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "cc" is as driver program that might invoke several different programs,
>> including a preprocessor, a compiler, an assembler, and a linker. It
>> was perfectly reasonable for K&R
Yes. I said nothing about the end user mixing and matching those
programs.
> And another:
>
> On 31/07/2021 05:14, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> You very commonly gloss over the distinction between an*implementation*
>> and a*compiler*. An implementation consists of several components; the
>> compiler is just one of them.
>
> Even if someone doesn't create their own bundle, you imply that they
> need to be aware of exactly what it comprises.
You lied when you claimed that I said that the end user must obtain the
components from different sources and mix and match them. I never said
or implied that. The mixing and matching is usually done by package
maintainers. And yes, sometimes the components of a given
implementation are developed together and perhaps not intended to be
used with other components.
It can be very useful to understand that an implementation is made up of
components, and which components make up the implementation you're
using. For example, such an understanding can prevent someone from
complaining that gcc doesn't implement printf correctly.
> (As though I would have any clue as to what is what: I have two gcc
> installations; tdm/gcc is 4900 files/215 directories/560MB; the other
> is DFS's mingw64, 4850 files/195 directories/850MB.
>
> Clang is part of an LLVM download which is 370 files/34
> directories/1730MB, but I believe it still requires MSVC or MSBUILD
> tools (I get those confused) for certain parts. I think that MS
> product is 12300 files/1330 directories/2550MB.
>
> My own product is 1 file/1 directory/1MB (0 directories really as you
> can stick the exe where you want); this one I do have a clue about!)
I accept that you have a clue about all this. I think you understand it
perfectly well. The mystery is why you pretend not to and get angry
when someone points it out.
If your own product combines all the elements of a C implementation into
a siungle executable file, that's fine. It's an unusual approach, but I
suppose there's no particular reason not to do it that way.
I presume from context that this single executable file includes the
code that implements printf rather than generating calls to an external
library. If not, it's not a complete C implementation (which would also
be just fine).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 22:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <seusif$6gt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162298 |
On 10/08/2021 22:00, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> My own product is 1 file/1 directory/1MB (0 directories really as you
>> can stick the exe where you want); this one I do have a clue about!)
>
> I accept that you have a clue about all this. I think you understand it
> perfectly well. The mystery is why you pretend not to and get angry
> when someone points it out.
>
> If your own product combines all the elements of a C implementation into
> a siungle executable file, that's fine. It's an unusual approach, but I
> suppose there's no particular reason not to do it that way.
>
> I presume from context that this single executable file includes the
> code that implements printf rather than generating calls to an external
> library. If not, it's not a complete C implementation (which would also
> be just fine).
When I first encountered the C library, I considered it as part of
Windows, since it was described in the same documentation set, and it
has always been shipped with that OS.
I don't therefore see any reason to spend a year or two reimplementating
the 1400 functions in msvcrt.dll, when msvcrt.dll does the job perfectly
well and will always be available.
Especially when the same library is a dynamic import for most EXE and
DLL files, including gcc.exe itself:
----------------------------------------------------
Executable file gcc.exe
PE Sig:PE
Coff header: (34404,11,0,1283584,0,240,558)
Machine: 8664
....
Import Directory
....
Entry: 13c028
Lookup RVA: 13c1f8
Time Date Stamp: 0
Fwd Chain: 0
Name RVA: 13d7bc
Name: msvcrt.dll <<<----------
Import Addr RVA: 13c788
Import:13cf38 38 __C_specific_handler
Import:13cf50 40 ___lc_codepage_func
Import:13cf66 43 ___mb_cur_max_func
Import:13cf7c 52 __getmainargs
....
Note that my msvcrt.dll is about 600KB. If absolutely necessary it's
possible to bundle it into bcc.exe, and UPX [compress] the resulting
1.7MB file into a compact 0.5MB executable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 15:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87pmulue1r.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162301 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/08/2021 22:00, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> My own product is 1 file/1 directory/1MB (0 directories really as you
>>> can stick the exe where you want); this one I do have a clue about!)
>> I accept that you have a clue about all this. I think you
>> understand it
>> perfectly well. The mystery is why you pretend not to and get angry
>> when someone points it out.
>> If your own product combines all the elements of a C implementation
>> into
>> a siungle executable file, that's fine. It's an unusual approach, but I
>> suppose there's no particular reason not to do it that way.
>> I presume from context that this single executable file includes the
>> code that implements printf rather than generating calls to an external
>> library. If not, it's not a complete C implementation (which would also
>> be just fine).
>
> When I first encountered the C library, I considered it as part of
> Windows, since it was described in the same documentation set, and it
> has always been shipped with that OS.
>
> I don't therefore see any reason to spend a year or two
> reimplementating the 1400 functions in msvcrt.dll, when msvcrt.dll
> does the job perfectly well and will always be available.
Nobody said you should. Your statements led me to infer, apparently
incorrectly, that you were claiming that your single executable was a
complete implementation.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-09 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sesilm$e27$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162281 |
On 8/9/2021 4:45 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> And when I have to play with C, I prefer my own small C compiler; you
>> know, that one with the faster printf than gcc/tdm.
>
> Really? Your *compiler* implements printf? Not the runtime library?
>
> Yes, the distinction matters.
>
While `printf` is certainly a library feature from the formal point of
view, it is not unusual to see it implemented as an intrinsic at
compiler level in modern implementations. GCC will happily replace
printf("Hello World\n");
with
puts("Hello World");
at compile-time.
--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web