Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #88990 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-13 01:15 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-14 01:32 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 382 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-13 01:15 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 08:47 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-13 02:07 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 13:48 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 10:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 13:54 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 13:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 15:26 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 17:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-13 10:05 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 20:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-13 14:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 22:21 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-13 22:59 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 11:19 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 21:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 20:28 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 12:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 21:29 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 15:03 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-15 19:11 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-15 16:14 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:04 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-18 16:47 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-23 20:26 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 21:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 21:54 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 23:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-13 18:51 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 16:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-14 08:38 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-06-15 16:42 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 17:05 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-19 09:49 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-19 15:14 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 10:31 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 13:38 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 15:21 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 15:44 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 16:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 16:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 22:09 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-14 14:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 23:05 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-14 15:12 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 23:16 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-15 07:45 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 03:02 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-15 11:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 13:04 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 09:33 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 11:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 21:27 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 13:41 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 00:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 14:24 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 01:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 08:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 09:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 10:12 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 01:31 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 11:03 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 08:42 -0700
Kiki's killfile (Was: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-06-16 17:03 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:16 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-18 16:49 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 23:42 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:35 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 01:19 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 15:12 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 08:21 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 23:10 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 16:54 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 19:10 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 06:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 01:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 07:13 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 05:29 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 08:12 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 06:18 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 21:57 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 20:54 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 23:21 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 05:18 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:19 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:40 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 16:37 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 22:08 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 21:02 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 00:17 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 22:33 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 12:07 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 10:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 21:07 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-19 13:36 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 13:50 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 22:42 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-19 23:16 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 00:12 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 16:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 01:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-20 08:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 16:57 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-20 14:23 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 15:56 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 01:24 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 17:51 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 02:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 01:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 10:10 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 02:22 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 10:51 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 03:12 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-20 11:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 03:59 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 12:19 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 04:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 13:05 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 05:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 15:53 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 16:22 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 17:13 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 10:11 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 21:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 19:10 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 01:14 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-21 17:27 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-22 08:24 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 20:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-22 23:23 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-23 20:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 23:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 19:02 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-21 03:45 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 20:27 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-21 10:03 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-21 02:44 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-21 12:51 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-21 10:14 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-21 16:44 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-21 19:50 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-21 16:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-21 10:54 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-21 20:02 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-21 21:13 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-21 13:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 10:00 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 22:07 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 19:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 01:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-20 12:38 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 15:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 23:17 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 21:43 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:36 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 10:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 16:03 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 22:28 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:11 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 02:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-06 15:12 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-06 08:29 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:54 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 07:18 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 01:58 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-16 19:37 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2016-07-16 15:58 -0300
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-16 19:25 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 12:10 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-06-18 10:35 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:48 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-06-18 23:11 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 21:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-06-19 08:23 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 14:30 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 09:43 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 14:55 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 16:29 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 15:42 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:23 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 10:36 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 15:53 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 11:40 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 09:30 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 17:41 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 08:11 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 11:59 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 09:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 18:24 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 14:33 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 16:12 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-18 09:16 +1200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 14:16 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 06:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 07:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 18:34 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 18:06 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:06 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-17 21:49 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 15:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-18 02:18 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 19:00 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:36 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:28 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 03:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 03:31 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 20:00 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 15:34 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 10:20 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 02:13 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 11:44 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 10:47 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 03:41 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 10:52 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 13:18 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 10:20 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 10:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 12:55 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 12:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 14:11 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 09:44 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 18:38 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 11:46 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:07 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 12:23 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:43 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 13:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 21:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 14:42 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 23:28 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 15:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 16:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 01:11 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 18:01 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 18:44 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 19:42 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 13:06 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-16 15:06 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 14:40 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 09:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-06-17 20:51 +0800
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 10:32 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 11:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 12:59 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 12:34 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 13:56 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 13:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 14:33 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 08:47 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 11:51 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 20:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 16:36 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 21:54 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 17:05 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 16:05 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:34 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-06-17 20:43 +0800
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 06:15 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 15:47 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 07:51 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 11:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 14:57 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:37 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-19 00:50 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 17:30 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-19 06:35 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-19 01:29 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 17:43 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-19 02:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 18:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 17:14 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-19 15:17 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 14:52 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 12:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 20:55 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 16:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 16:19 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 16:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 01:01 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 17:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 21:55 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 10:56 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 06:36 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 16:43 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 09:13 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-18 18:49 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 11:46 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 21:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-18 13:30 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 11:17 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 01:18 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 17:53 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 18:20 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 21:37 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 10:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-18 07:52 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 13:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 22:01 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-06-18 10:02 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 21:10 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 06:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 15:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 10:35 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 09:07 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-06-16 15:32 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 17:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-06-16 22:26 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 23:44 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 16:56 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 13:43 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 16:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 20:57 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-16 21:12 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 22:31 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 22:32 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 19:59 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 03:11 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-17 09:11 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 12:20 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 12:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 09:24 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 18:16 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 11:15 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:09 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 11:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 12:01 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-15 19:15 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 03:12 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 13:03 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 04:22 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 14:20 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-15 19:33 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:39 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 09:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-13 14:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-13 15:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-14 09:51 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 23:19 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 23:46 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-13 19:04 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-13 20:04 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 10:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 00:23 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 11:17 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 02:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-14 08:37 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 08:56 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-14 09:14 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-18 11:47 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 10:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 12:54 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 05:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-13 22:56 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-15 10:09 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-06-15 15:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-16 14:39 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-16 15:11 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 14:28 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-16 21:25 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-16 12:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-16 22:00 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 21:14 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-16 14:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 22:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-17 13:31 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-17 13:28 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-06-16 21:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 10:53 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 08:39 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-08-14 01:32 -0400
Page 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c4fcbb2-0e3b-4531-a2b3-3d1bfc33a071@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89154 |
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 12:03:40 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 15/06/16 12:12, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 9:20:47 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > >> On 14/06/16 16:21, BartC wrote: > >> > >> The idea that any function, anywhere, can access data or identifiers > >> within other functions, is just inconceivably bad in my view. It is a > >> return to spaghetti programming and unstructured Basic, and you lose all > >> control over what code accesses what data and at what time. In > >> addition, you are not merely tying your compiler's hands with respect to > >> optimisation - you are chopping off its arms and legs. > >> > > You've been taught to program like that. > > I have been taught, and self-taught, a wide variety of programming > paradigms and methods. I have plenty of practice at spaghetti > programming as well as structured programming, OO programming, > functional programming, and mixtures, in perhaps 20 different languages. > I have forgotten much of those languages long ago, but I believe I have > enough experience that I am not limited to only considering one idea > "because that's what teacher said was right". > > > But it's just one paradigm amongst many. Giving every variable in the program a > > unique multi-scoped address (UK, Scotland, Glasgow, Enterprise Way, Block 4, > > Super Software, David Brown's office) accessible from anywhere else is also > > a reasonable approach to giving high-level human-understandable access to > > memory. > > I am happy to accept that there are times when such an arrangement can > be useful. But C programming is not one of them. In fact, I am having > difficulty in identifying any type of programming in which it would be > useful - especially if you allow the freedom of alternative solutions > such as more levels of nested scope and local functions. > > > After all, if I wanted to send a snail mail message to you, I would use exactly > > that technique. > > > > Yes, but we are not sending a snail mail messages - we are programming in C. > You're right. C isn't that language. But snail mail is an example of such a system. I can obtain names and addresses of millions, maybe billions of people. And it works well. If we agreed that I'd send some documents to your address, the connection would almost always work, the fact that there are hundreds of "David Brown"s in English-speaking countries would be unlikely to cause us a problem. Hierarchical addressing with everything in scope is something humans can cope with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <njrh66$1t0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89156 |
On 15/06/16 13:22, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 12:03:40 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 15/06/16 12:12, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 9:20:47 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: <snip> >>> But it's just one paradigm amongst many. Giving every variable in the program a >>> unique multi-scoped address (UK, Scotland, Glasgow, Enterprise Way, Block 4, >>> Super Software, David Brown's office) accessible from anywhere else is also >>> a reasonable approach to giving high-level human-understandable access to >>> memory. >> >> I am happy to accept that there are times when such an arrangement can >> be useful. But C programming is not one of them. In fact, I am having >> difficulty in identifying any type of programming in which it would be >> useful - especially if you allow the freedom of alternative solutions >> such as more levels of nested scope and local functions. >> >>> After all, if I wanted to send a snail mail message to you, I would use exactly >>> that technique. >>> >> >> Yes, but we are not sending a snail mail messages - we are programming in C. >> > You're right. C isn't that language. > But snail mail is an example of such a system. I can obtain names and addresses > of millions, maybe billions of people. And it works well. If we agreed that I'd > send some documents to your address, the connection would almost always > work, the fact that there are hundreds of "David Brown"s in English-speaking > countries would be unlikely to cause us a problem. > Hierarchical addressing with everything in scope is something humans can cope > with. > Completely true - and completely irrelevant. There are any number of systems of data which humans cope with easily, and which is not arranged as a hierarchical system with everything in scope. (In fact, that also applies to people and addresses - the "scope" in this context is what the people, sorting offices, post offices, postmen, etc., know about at the time. And the hierarchy exists at least partly because everything is /not/ in scope from everywhere else.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 19:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5761a955.5610468@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #89156 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 12:03:40 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > Yes, but we are not sending a snail mail messages - we are programming in C. > > > You're right. C isn't that language. > But snail mail is an example of such a system. I can obtain names and addresses > of millions, maybe billions of people. And it works well. If we agreed that I'd > send some documents to your address, the connection would almost always > work, the fact that there are hundreds of "David Brown"s in English-speaking > countries would be unlikely to cause us a problem. Erm. No. No, that's not how it works _at all_. If that's what you want, to be compatible with the snail mail system, then your language will have to allow objects to be addressed _only_ as "function X, the Nth declared object", and any object name used ever to be ignored except at the whim of the called, _not_ calling, function. Because... OK, I have a common name. But suppose I hadn't. Suppose I were called Rabindranomaria Flubbdubbonovitsch Vanderpotgerukte. That is, I guarantee it 100%, a completely unique name. And yet, if you direct a letter to Rabindranomaria Flubbdubbonovitsch Vanderpotgerukte, 1060 West Addison, Chicago, Ill., USA, it _will_ arrive at Wrigley Field, not at my home address, and it _will_ be opened by some poor sap working for the Cubs. Despite my supposedly 100% unique name among all 7 milliard humans, I will not get to read it unless, by some remote chance, Joliet Jake knows about me. Conversely, if you post a letter to Thomas Atkins, esq., <my address>, <my home town>, The Netherlands, it will land on <my doormat>, and I will open it, if only to make sure that there wasn't some mistake and if not, where I could possibly redirect this letter - and probably, upon me concluding that I can't reasonably send it anywhere else, it will end up in <my wastepaper basket>. In other words: in snail mail, the _only_ relevant thing determining where a letter goes is the address. The name is completely irrelevant, except on the discretion of the owner of the premises. If you want the same thing for program objects, say goodbye to meaningful identifiers. In other, other words: your analogy is irrepairably broken. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 12:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87vb16vk1e.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #89194 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > Because... OK, I have a common name. But suppose I hadn't. Suppose I > were called Rabindranomaria Flubbdubbonovitsch Vanderpotgerukte. That > is, I guarantee it 100%, a completely unique name. And yet, if you > direct a letter to Rabindranomaria Flubbdubbonovitsch Vanderpotgerukte, > 1060 West Addison, Chicago, Ill., USA, it _will_ arrive at Wrigley > Field Which is ridiculous because Vanderpotgerukte plays third base for the Marlins. > Joliet Jake knows about me. As soon as I saw 1060 West Addison I hoped this was coming...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 20:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5765b126.31517859@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #89519 |
Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: > raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > > > Because... OK, I have a common name. But suppose I hadn't. Suppose I > > were called Rabindranomaria Flubbdubbonovitsch Vanderpotgerukte. That > > is, I guarantee it 100%, a completely unique name. And yet, if you > > direct a letter to Rabindranomaria Flubbdubbonovitsch Vanderpotgerukte, > > 1060 West Addison, Chicago, Ill., USA, it _will_ arrive at Wrigley > > Field > > Which is ridiculous because Vanderpotgerukte plays third base for the > Marlins. > > > Joliet Jake knows about me. > > As soon as I saw 1060 West Addison I hoped this was coming... I care nothing for rounders, but I do like good music and decent comedy. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 09:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnshwez960.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89149 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 9:20:47 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>> The idea that any function, anywhere, can access data or identifiers
>> within other functions, is just inconceivably bad in my view. It is a
>> return to spaghetti programming and unstructured Basic, and you lose all
>> control over what code accesses what data and at what time. In
>> addition, you are not merely tying your compiler's hands with respect to
>> optimisation - you are chopping off its arms and legs.
>>
> You've been taught to program like that.
> But it's just one paradigm amongst many. Giving every variable in the
> program a unique multi-scoped address (UK, Scotland, Glasgow,
> Enterprise Way, Block 4, Super Software, David Brown's office)
> accessible from anywhere else is also a reasonable approach to giving
> high-level human-understandable access to memory.
> After all, if I wanted to send a snail mail message to you, I would
> use exactly that technique.
I'm not sure how snail mail addressing works in the UK, but in
the US if I send a letter to someone who's also in the US, I don't
specify the country. And if I want to send something to someone
else in the same office building, all I need is the person's name
and office number. (My current employer is small enough that I'd
probably just walk it over, but I've worked in larger facilities.)
And in the context of C, code in a nested scope within one function
*can't* refer to an object defined in a nested scope in another
function. Such an object is not and should not be visible, and
likely doesn't even exist at the moment.
Restricted scopes exist for very good reasons. Making everything
globally visible would be a huge step backwards.
--
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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 14:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <275e7cbe-2ac0-44ee-9669-e88911e526a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89039 |
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 9:30:28 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > As far as I can tell "unlimited, arbitrary nested scopes, full > of names with anonymous owners" means "scopes". > Let's say we enforce the coding standard that every variable used in a function shall be declared at the start, one per line, without initialisation and with a comment as to use. static variables shall take the prefix g_. Only one global structure shall be allowed, called "globals". Now we've got three scopes, they're not arbitrary, they represent the program, the source file, and the callable function respectively, they're not exactly nested because you need not #include "globals.h", they are full of names, you're right there, for a scope to be anything but would be very hard to use, and they don't have anonymous owners, the file, the function and the program are all named objects. Alos you can identify the scope any name belong to by looking at it, if it is a reference to "globals" it is global, if it is prefixed g_ it is file scope, if it is a bare identifier it exists in function scope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa6d3612-b066-4a89-a16a-dd6f9e339927@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89046 |
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:38:32 PM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote: > Let's say we enforce the coding standard that every variable used > in a function shall be declared at the start, one per line, > without initialisation and with a comment as to use. static > variables shall take the prefix g_. Only one global structure > shall be allowed, called "globals". It's useful to be able to have a compilation unit define the global variables which exist for purpose of that compilation unit, but may also be accessed elsewhere. If there were a means of creating a structure that combined members created for it in all compilation units, such a thing could be quite helpful from a performance perspective on some processors in cases where the most heavily-used variables could fit within a small space (e.g. 2K for many ARM chips, or 64K for the 68000). If all functions maintain a register (e.g. R11 on the ARM, or A5 on the 68000) as a pointer to such a structure, then accesses to members of that structure could be twice as fast as accesses to other global variables (on the ARM, it's possible for code to contain a table of values which can be accessed using PC-relative addressing, but most global accesses require loading a pointer from a local table and then using that pointer to access the variable; if R11 were devoted to accessing a global structure, then variables that were near the base of that structure could be accessed directly using that pointer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 09:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <njod1f$lio$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89048 |
On 14/06/16 00:09, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:38:32 PM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> Let's say we enforce the coding standard that every variable used >> in a function shall be declared at the start, one per line, >> without initialisation and with a comment as to use. static >> variables shall take the prefix g_. Only one global structure >> shall be allowed, called "globals". > > It's useful to be able to have a compilation unit define the global variables > which exist for purpose of that compilation unit, but may also be accessed > elsewhere. If there were a means of creating a structure that combined > members created for it in all compilation units, such a thing could be > quite helpful from a performance perspective on some processors in cases > where the most heavily-used variables could fit within a small space (e.g. > 2K for many ARM chips, or 64K for the 68000). If all functions maintain > a register (e.g. R11 on the ARM, or A5 on the 68000) as a pointer to such > a structure, then accesses to members of that structure could be twice as > fast as accesses to other global variables (on the ARM, it's possible for > code to contain a table of values which can be accessed using PC-relative > addressing, but most global accesses require loading a pointer from a local > table and then using that pointer to access the variable; if R11 were > devoted to accessing a global structure, then variables that were near the > base of that structure could be accessed directly using that pointer. > This sounds like two features that already exist on some targets and some compilers. One is the "small data section". This is commonly used on processors with lots of registers, such as the PowerPC. Using the PPCEABI standard, all program-lifetime statically allocated data (globals, file-scope variables, function static variables) below a compiler-specific size (typically 8 bytes) are collected into sections "sbss" and "sdata" rather than the standard "bss" and "data" sections. At program startup, a register is set to point to the middle of the combined small data section, so that all sbss and sdata are accessed using GPR13 + 16-bit offset addressing mode in a single instruction, rather than having to load a 32-bit absolute address (an extra instruction, plus another extra 32-bit word in code space). This is not used by standard on ARM or m68k, but it certainly could be used, and would be more efficient for some code. Another feature that can be supported by compilers is "anchors" (such as gcc's "-fsection-anchors"). You can think of this as meaning that all the global data defined in a compilation unit is collected into two structs (one for initialised data, one for uninitialised data). Within functions in the compilation unit, the compiler can make a pointer-to-struct register and use that to access the variables rather than using their absolute addresses (or whatever method is usually used for global data). Combined with link-time optimisation, this can give roughly the effect you are looking for. (There are complications - there are /always/ complications. Initialised function-static data, for example, would likely be handled separately if the initialiser is not compile-time constant.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 23:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <njnbha$qsl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89046 |
On 13/06/2016 22:38, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 9:30:28 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> As far as I can tell "unlimited, arbitrary nested scopes, full >> of names with anonymous owners" means "scopes". >> > Let's say we enforce the coding standard that every variable used > in a function shall be declared at the start, one per line, > without initialisation and with a comment as to use. static > variables shall take the prefix g_. Only one global structure > shall be allowed, called "globals". > > Now we've got three scopes, they're not arbitrary, they represent > the program, the source file, and the callable function respectively, > they're not exactly nested because you need not #include "globals.h", Actually three (lexical) scopes is pretty much what I allow in my own coding projects, just like you listed them too: Program, Module and Function This doesn't seem a particularly onerous limitation to have to keep in mind (not much harder than remembering there is only one level of function nesting in C). In C however, a source file can only sees one less scope: Module and Function (as file-scope and extern names share the the same scope). But C makes up for this by having /unlimited/ nested (and sequential) scopes inside a function. Presumably it makes sense for the tens of thousands of lines of source code outside a function to share one measly scope, while a single 20-line function needs hundreds! I can't quite see it though... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 23:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87inxc1zdh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #89049 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 13/06/2016 22:38, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 9:30:28 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell "unlimited, arbitrary nested scopes, full
>>> of names with anonymous owners" means "scopes".
>>>
>> Let's say we enforce the coding standard that every variable used
>> in a function shall be declared at the start, one per line,
>> without initialisation and with a comment as to use. static
>> variables shall take the prefix g_. Only one global structure
>> shall be allowed, called "globals".
>>
>> Now we've got three scopes, they're not arbitrary, they represent
>> the program, the source file, and the callable function respectively,
>> they're not exactly nested because you need not #include "globals.h",
>
> Actually three (lexical) scopes is pretty much what I allow in my own
> coding projects, just like you listed them too:
There is a terminological issue that is going to cause confusion. Names
have a scope specific to that name, but you can also talk about kinds of
scope ("block scope", "function scope" and so on).
In C, ignoring the name f for the moment,
void f(int a) // scope of a starts here
{
int b; // scope of b starts here
int c; // scope of c starts here
...
}
There are three nested scopes but only one kind -- block scope.
I suggest that individual scopes and kinds of scope be clearly
distinguished.
I interpreted your remarks as referring to the scopes of individual
names (and I think that is what you meant) but Malcolm seems to be
talking about kinds of scope.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 19:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a936dc45-7310-8950-87d6-3ebbef83516c@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #89052 |
On 06/13/2016 06:46 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
...
> There is a terminological issue that is going to cause confusion. Names
> have a scope specific to that name, but you can also talk about kinds of
> scope ("block scope", "function scope" and so on).
>
> In C, ignoring the name f for the moment,
>
> void f(int a) // scope of a starts here
> {
> int b; // scope of b starts here
> int c; // scope of c starts here
> ...
> }
>
> There are three nested scopes but only one kind -- block scope.
>
> I suggest that individual scopes and kinds of scope be clearly
> distinguished.
I hate to disagree with someone who's correcting Bartc's confusion, but
the standard disagrees with you on the first part:
"Two identifiers have the _same scope_ if and only if their scopes
terminate at the same point." (6.2.1p6)
The term "same scope" is italicized, indicating that this sentence
constitutes the official definition of that term. This is important,
because that term is used three places in the standard, and in each of
those places, what the standard says would be meaningless if the scope
of a and the scope of c were considered to be different scopes just
because they start at different locations:
6.7:
> 3 If an identifier has no linkage, there shall be no more than one declaration of the identifier
> (in a declarator or type specifier) with the same scope and in the same name space, except
> that:
> — a typedef name may be redefined to denote the same type as it currently does,
> provided that type is not a variably modified type;
> — tags may be redeclared as specified in 6.7.2.3.
> 4 All declarations in the same scope that refer to the same object or function shall specify
> compatible types.
Also,
6.7.2.3p4:
"All declarations of structure, union, or enumerated types that have the
same scope and use the same tag declare the same type."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 20:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1532f293-1f40-7641-59ed-4950810b6d78@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #89054 |
On 06/13/2016 07:41 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>> On 06/13/2016 06:46 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> There is a terminological issue that is going to cause confusion. Names
>>> have a scope specific to that name, but you can also talk about kinds of
>>> scope ("block scope", "function scope" and so on).
>>> In C, ignoring the name f for the moment,
>>> void f(int a) // scope of a starts here
>>> {
>>> int b; // scope of b starts here
>>> int c; // scope of c starts here
>>> ...
>>> }
>>> There are three nested scopes but only one kind -- block scope.
>>> I suggest that individual scopes and kinds of scope be clearly
>>> distinguished.
>> I hate to disagree with someone who's correcting Bartc's confusion, but
>> the standard disagrees with you on the first part:
>> "Two identifiers have the _same scope_ if and only if their scopes
>> terminate at the same point." (6.2.1p6)
>
> You can put your mind at rest because Ben does nowhere use
> the technical term »same scope« (at least in the text that
> is quoted above).
True, he did not use that term, but he did use an intimately related
term. He said that the scopes must be distinguished, whereas the
standard requires that they be considered the same. I'm pointing out the
conflict between "distinguished" and "same".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 10:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <874m8w146b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #89054 |
"James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 06/13/2016 06:46 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> ...
>> There is a terminological issue that is going to cause confusion. Names
>> have a scope specific to that name, but you can also talk about kinds of
>> scope ("block scope", "function scope" and so on).
>>
>> In C, ignoring the name f for the moment,
>>
>> void f(int a) // scope of a starts here
>> {
>> int b; // scope of b starts here
>> int c; // scope of c starts here
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> There are three nested scopes but only one kind -- block scope.
>>
>> I suggest that individual scopes and kinds of scope be clearly
>> distinguished.
>
> I hate to disagree with someone who's correcting Bartc's confusion, but
> the standard disagrees with you on the first part:
>
> "Two identifiers have the _same scope_ if and only if their scopes
> terminate at the same point." (6.2.1p6)
Sure. As you go on to say, that's a special two-word term that is of
significance in other places, but the simple term scope is defined a few
paragraphs before:
6.2.1
2. For each different entity that an identifier designates, the
identifier is visible (i.e., can be used) only within a region of
program text called its scope.
(scope is italicised here). And the location where a name's scope
starts is given just after your cited paragraph:
7. ... Any other identifier has scope that begins just after the
completion of its declarator.
Now all this means that there is a terminological mine field here.
There is the kind of scope, the special term "same scope" and the scope
of an identifier.
I think it's rather awkward that the word "same" as been used like this
in the standard. It means that two identifiers can have the "same
scope" but their scopes might not be the same in the usual English
language sense. I'd suggest simply avoiding the term "same scope"
unless you are specifically referencing the special meaning as it is
used in the other passages you quoted.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 00:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <njnf9i$65j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89052 |
On 13/06/2016 23:46, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> Actually three (lexical) scopes is pretty much what I allow in my own
>> coding projects, just like you listed them too:
>
> There is a terminological issue that is going to cause confusion. Names
> have a scope specific to that name, but you can also talk about kinds of
> scope ("block scope", "function scope" and so on).
>
> In C, ignoring the name f for the moment,
>
> void f(int a) // scope of a starts here
> {
> int b; // scope of b starts here
> int c; // scope of c starts here
> ...
> }
>
> There are three nested scopes but only one kind -- block scope.
OK. Except that in your example, some names will only occupy part of a
block. This is something else that makes me a little uneasy.
(In my projects, a declaration in the middle of any block has a scope
spanning the entire block; the whole function in fact. It is also
possible to write the equivalent of this:
int* a = &b;
int b = 78;
printf("%d\n", *a);
and get 78 displayed if I compile to native code. Translated to C
however, it will fail to compile, as declarations must be in the right
order. So I can't declare things out of order without a lot of effort.)
> I suggest that individual scopes and kinds of scope be clearly
> distinguished.
Possibly. But if names belonging to different kinds of scope can all
appear in the same expression and it is necessary to resolve them, then
it can be necessary to look across all those scopes, whatever kind they are.
With a program-module-function set, that's easy. With a
module-function-block-block-... model, it's a little harder! A block can
contain 0,1 or 2 versions of a name, the latter depending on the
position of the expression relative to the declaration of a name.
Maybe David Brown's idea can be used and an extra dummy block is
inserted to ensure that declarations are always at the start of a block
so their scopes are more rigidly defined. But, whatever, I think this is
just something else that makes C harder to compile than it need be.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 11:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y468yszv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #89055 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: <snip> > ... But, whatever, I think > this is just something else that makes C harder to compile than it > need be. It's not entirely clear what "this" refers to here because you've been arguing against "mixed declarations and statements" but often citing examples that apply equally to declarations at the start of blocks, something that you then said you also dislike. That makes it hard to argue the case. But the general point is also interesting. Making C easy to compile has not been a major motivating factor for some time. That has, of course, three parts -- there are the resources needed at compile time, the resources needed at run time and the effort needed by the compiler's authors. I'm not sure which one you are talking about here. I think only the first is no longer very significant. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 02:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <342888eb-c388-49b8-8cd9-0466aac36157@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89052 |
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 11:46:08 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > I suggest that individual scopes and kinds of scope be clearly > distinguished. > > I interpreted your remarks as referring to the scopes of individual > names (and I think that is what you meant) but Malcolm seems to be > talking about kinds of scope. > C scope is binary. At any given point in the source, a name is either in scope or it isn't. (In C++ you have named scopes, and a scope resolution operator, which is a different kind of nesting). Every line of source is within the program, which is the first level of scope. Not all source is within a "translation unit" and you can play silly hacks with headers that access file scope variables. But most is. You have several source files per program. So that's nested, but only to one level. Ignoring the silly hacks, every block is within a single translation unit, and blocks nest. So the nesting goes: program - file - outer block (function) - inner block1 - inner bock 2 ... You can add as many inner blocks as you wish. That's the feature Bart finds undesirable. And when you set out the system as I have done, he has a strong case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln37of3hos.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89061 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
> Every line of source is within the program, which is the first level of
> scope.
> Not all source is within a "translation unit" and you can play silly hacks
> with headers that access file scope variables. But most is. You have
> several source files per program. So that's nested, but only to one
> level.
[...]
Do you have an example of source that is not within a translation unit?
--
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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdda132f-4868-4d82-aaba-396d00dbc44b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89076 |
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 4:37:30 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> [...]
> > Every line of source is within the program, which is the first level of
> > scope.
> > Not all source is within a "translation unit" and you can play silly hacks
> > with headers that access file scope variables. But most is. You have
> > several source files per program. So that's nested, but only to one
> > level.
> [...]
>
> Do you have an example of source that is not within a translation unit?
>
/* fred.h */
sillyhack = verysilly;
/* jim.c */
void foo()
{
double sillyhack;
double verysilly = 42;
#include "fred.h"
printf("Silly hack was, heh heh heh %g\n", sillyhack);
}
/* bert.c */
void bar()
{
const char *sillyhack;
const char *verysilly = "wabbadoo";
#include "fred.h"
printf("%s\n", sillyhack);
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny46721f9.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89078 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 4:37:30 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> > Every line of source is within the program, which is the first level of
>> > scope.
>> > Not all source is within a "translation unit" and you can play silly hacks
>> > with headers that access file scope variables. But most is. You have
>> > several source files per program. So that's nested, but only to one
>> > level.
>> [...]
>>
>> Do you have an example of source that is not within a translation unit?
>>
> /* fred.h */
>
> sillyhack = verysilly;
>
>
> /* jim.c */
>
> void foo()
> {
> double sillyhack;
> double verysilly = 42;
>
> #include "fred.h"
>
> printf("Silly hack was, heh heh heh %g\n", sillyhack);
> }
>
> /* bert.c */
>
> void bar()
> {
> const char *sillyhack;
> const char *verysilly = "wabbadoo";
>
> #include "fred.h"
>
> printf("%s\n", sillyhack);
>
> }
Ok.
Do you have an example of source that is not within a translation unit?
If that was intended to be an example, what source is not within a
translation unit?
N1570 5.1.1.1:
A source file together with all the headers and source files
included via the preprocessing directive #include is known as a
*preprocessing translation unit*. After preprocessing, a
preprocessing translation unit is called a *translation unit*.
When jim.c is compiled, the contents of fred.h are part of the resulting
translation unit. When bert.c is compiled, the contents of fred.h are
again part of the resulting (different) translation unit.
--
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]
Page 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web