Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60841 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 432 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 10:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:25 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:35 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 07:52 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:15 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:44 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-24 13:01 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 04:16 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-24 04:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 16:07 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-25 22:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 14:29 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-26 15:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:43 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-04-23 09:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:03 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:53 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:37 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:12 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:46 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 08:47 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Fred K <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 07:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 16:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 01:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 10:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 18:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 23:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 08:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-26 12:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-28 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-09 13:14 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 08:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-10 12:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-05-10 13:22 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 18:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 11:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 08:24 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 21:15 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 19:40 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-13 21:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 23:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-14 00:19 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 04:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 04:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-14 11:34 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:24 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-17 10:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 13:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 09:51 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 05:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 01:31 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-13 21:05 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 00:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 02:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 05:02 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-15 13:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-16 02:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:13 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:36 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 12:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 14:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 13:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 14:20 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:51 +0100
I'm starting a new thread (Was: Spurious diagnostic messages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 11:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 18:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 00:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-21 12:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 13:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-22 09:11 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:15 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 12:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:26 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 14:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 09:28 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-22 21:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:36 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 14:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:38 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 18:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 23:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-22 18:28 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 16:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 16:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 00:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 23:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:10 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:42 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 20:25 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 07:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 18:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages "Bartc" <bartc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-01 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 11:48 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 18:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 13:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 21:07 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 23:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 15:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-24 22:45 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-25 18:59 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-25 20:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-31 13:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-25 12:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:11 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 11:26 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-26 22:02 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-26 14:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 16:58 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-26 16:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 08:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 20:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 08:47 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 20:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 16:54 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-31 01:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 06:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 16:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:36 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-31 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-01 08:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:08 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:15 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:24 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-30 13:30 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:12 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:36 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 18:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-26 11:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-26 15:35 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 00:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 00:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 13:43 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 00:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:16 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 12:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:42 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 09:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-24 22:22 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-01 20:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 18:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 14:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tonton Th <tTh@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-08-01 22:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-02 09:02 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 14:23 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 12:10 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:01 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:16 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-03 14:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 10:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 16:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 12:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 13:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 13:37 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 13:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:34 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 11:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 10:47 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:33 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 10:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-06 22:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:44 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 10:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 13:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 14:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-20 21:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:17 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:15 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 11:46 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-23 17:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:49 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 15:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 22:51 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-23 22:50 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-23 23:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 00:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 02:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 07:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 14:24 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 09:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 15:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-24 13:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 19:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-25 00:51 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 02:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 13:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 15:55 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 18:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-29 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-26 13:27 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 21:09 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 00:03 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 00:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 01:15 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 13:34 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 14:07 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 21:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-28 17:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 10:36 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 16:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 16:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:39 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 22:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 21:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-10 18:08 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-11 15:02 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 14:08 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-21 13:27 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 15:30 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 10:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 14:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 20:16 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 09:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 22:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 10:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-28 06:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 10:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 10:32 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 17:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-28 15:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 15:03 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-28 14:35 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 16:54 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-29 10:17 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 10:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 21:16 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 20:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 02:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-28 03:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 22:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 22:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:52 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 12:11 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 10:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 14:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 22:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 17:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:34 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 14:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> - 2015-05-29 15:28 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-29 15:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 16:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-17 15:46 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 11:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-18 08:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:09 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:03 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 14:41 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:39 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 13:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 19:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-14 09:54 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-14 08:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-14 14:37 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-15 16:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:44 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 06:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> - 2015-04-29 04:07 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 09:33 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700
Page 19 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 Next page →
| From | Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 06:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mk6sgr$490$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62723 |
On 5/28/15 4:28 AM, Bartc wrote: > What's the purpose of the 'test' variable here? I can't see it, although > it seems to make it marginally faster than without it. It's a state variable indicating that case testing is or is not required. It is initially set and is reset on success to disable testing for subsequent cases when there is no break statement. It's not there for speed - it's required to provide correct operation. A conventional switch statement /should/ be considerably faster, since it makes only a single value comparison for each case - except, of course, for the default case (where no comparison is done). -- Morris Dovey http://www.iedu.com/Solar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 10:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk42al$jg3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62665 |
On 27/05/2015 03:09, Morris Dovey wrote: >> Also, that syntax change makes this a very specific core language >> feature; my example was designed to leverage two simpler, more general >> language features that have _already_ been proposed numerous times and >> have working examples in the wild. > > Range cases may indeed have been proposed numerous times – which means > that they've been deemed to offer insufficient benefit all those > numerous times. Most languages I've created have included some sort of range feature (usually in the form of an inclusive range denoted by a..b, just like Pascal). They are used by themselves (eg. as x in a..b), as switch-case values, to build sets (eg. [a..b, c, d..e]), for array bounds (eg. [a..b]int), to specify slices and substrings (eg. x[a..b]), or sometimes simply to combine two values into one (eg. return a..b), with obviously the ability to extract either limit. And I use them everywhere (well, until I started using C). But if the people responsible for C decide they are of insufficient benefit, then they must be right. After all, what do I know? (I will just continue using them to increase my own productivity and readability in my own way.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 10:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mk4o1j$fh6$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62671 |
On 5/27/15 4:22 AM, Bartc wrote:
> On 27/05/2015 03:09, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>>> Also, that syntax change makes this a very specific core language
>>> feature; my example was designed to leverage two simpler, more general
>>> language features that have _already_ been proposed numerous times and
>>> have working examples in the wild.
>>
>> Range cases may indeed have been proposed numerous times – which means
>> that they've been deemed to offer insufficient benefit all those
>> numerous times.
>
> Most languages I've created have included some sort of range feature
> (usually in the form of an inclusive range denoted by a..b, just like
> Pascal).
>
> They are used by themselves (eg. as x in a..b), as switch-case values,
> to build sets (eg. [a..b, c, d..e]), for array bounds (eg. [a..b]int),
> to specify slices and substrings (eg. x[a..b]), or sometimes simply to
> combine two values into one (eg. return a..b), with obviously the
> ability to extract either limit.
>
> And I use them everywhere (well, until I started using C).
>
> But if the people responsible for C decide they are of insufficient
> benefit, then they must be right. After all, what do I know? (I will
> just continue using them to increase my own productivity and readability
> in my own way.)
There would seem to be a lot of interesting possibilities...
One that I've wondered about from time to time is
switch (x)
{ case { expression }:
/* case code */
/* other cases */
}
where <expression> is code that examines x and yields TRUE (execute case
code) or FALSE (do not execute case code) – of which an interesting
subset/derivative possibility might be:
switch (x)
{ case { function(x) }:
/* case code */
/* other cases */
}
which causes the named function to be invoked to produce the TRUE/FALSE
result.
C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature:
if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */;
:-)
--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 17:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk4q3i$ek4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62675 |
On 27/05/15 16:32, Morris Dovey wrote: <snip> > C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature: > > if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */; If you don't like &&, you can avoid it as follows: if(abs(2 * x - (upper + lower)) < upper - lower) /* x in range! */ That is, if the (absolute) distance of x from the midpoint is lower than half the range, then x is within range. Multiplying by 2 throughout removes the (potentially expensive) divisions. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 15:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk76d9$25o$1@gwdu112.gwdg.de> |
| In reply to | #62676 |
On 05/27/15 18:08, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature: >> >> if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */; > > If you don't like &&, you can avoid it as follows: > > if(abs(2 * x - (upper + lower)) < upper - lower) /* x in range! */ > > That is, if the (absolute) distance of x from the midpoint is lower than half > the range, then x is within range. Multiplying by 2 throughout removes the > (potentially expensive) divisions. Since you didn't write it*: note that this method introduces a number of places where precision might get lost, namely x might be close to HUGE_VAL, so that multiplying by 2 or subtracting (upper + lower) might push the expression over the edge into INFINITY resulting in an incorrect predicate. Of course the code is likely to be valid for any well-behaved data/bound combination. Thomas * I assume Richard is well aware of the caveats and just forgot to mention them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 15:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk775s$ufk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62731 |
On 28/05/15 14:49, Thomas Jahns wrote: > On 05/27/15 18:08, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature: >>> >>> if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */; >> >> If you don't like &&, you can avoid it as follows: >> >> if(abs(2 * x - (upper + lower)) < upper - lower) /* x in range! */ >> >> That is, if the (absolute) distance of x from the midpoint is lower than half >> the range, then x is within range. Multiplying by 2 throughout removes the >> (potentially expensive) divisions. > > Since you didn't write it*: note that this method introduces a number of places > where precision might get lost, namely x might be close to HUGE_VAL, so that > multiplying by 2 or subtracting (upper + lower) might push the expression over > the edge into INFINITY resulting in an incorrect predicate. > > Of course the code is likely to be valid for any well-behaved data/bound > combination. > > Thomas > > * I assume Richard is well aware of the caveats and just forgot to mention them. Actually, I was well aware of the caveats and assumed that anyone for whom they would be even remotely relevant would also be aware of them. The advantage of doing this was that I could post a short article. The disadvantage was the risk that someone like you would nit-pick it. (Please note: I actually approve of nit-picking, so this is not a criticism!) In any article, one always has to decide where to draw the line - if one tries to explain every detail, the article becomes unwieldy in its length and indeed in its comprehensibility. It also takes far too long to write. So it is necessary to make the cut at some point, and there will always be someone for whom that cut was made in the wrong place. (Which is fair enough, of course. This isn't a complaint, merely an observation.) I should perhaps take this opportunity to add that it was a bit daft of me to say that a couple of divisions by two are potentially expensive. They're actually very cheap (although not /quite/ as cheap as a single multiplication by two). I still prefer the multiplied-out method though, because (in my view) it is easier to read. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 14:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mk7n3e$8nr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62731 |
On 05/28/2015 09:49 AM, Thomas Jahns wrote: > On 05/27/15 18:08, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature: >>> >>> if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */; >> >> If you don't like &&, you can avoid it as follows: >> >> if(abs(2 * x - (upper + lower)) < upper - lower) /* x in range! */ >> >> That is, if the (absolute) distance of x from the midpoint is lower than half >> the range, then x is within range. Multiplying by 2 throughout removes the >> (potentially expensive) divisions. > > Since you didn't write it*: note that this method introduces a number of places > where precision might get lost, namely x might be close to HUGE_VAL, so that Note: unless __STDE_IEC559__ is pre#defined by the implementation, the only requirement imposed by the standard on HUGE_VAL is that it must be positive. It's name, and the contexts in which it is returned by standard library functions, both imply that it should be INFINITY, if an implementation supports infinities, and otherwise should be DBL_MAX - but the standard imposes no such requirement. As far as I can tell, a fully conforming implementation could have HUGE_VAL == DBL_MIN. I think that DBL_MAX is what you want in this context, not HUGE_VAL. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 16:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk7dko$sdr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62676 |
On 27/05/2015 17:08, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 27/05/15 16:32, Morris Dovey wrote: > > <snip> > >> C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature: >> >> if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */; > > If you don't like &&, you can avoid it as follows: > > if(abs(2 * x - (upper + lower)) < upper - lower) /* x in range! */ Is there any advantage in this compared with obvious version? I can see 6 operations here, compared with two in the original (plus the &&, but that's not really an op, it's usually a conditional jump, and often the second compare is not needed). I'm not sure about the need to avoid the &&, but my version would be: if ((x-lower)<=(upper-lower)) ... with both sides cast to unsigned (omitted for clarity). -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jadill33@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7c6b6ad-f214-48b4-a1be-db6b1f36d6cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #62734 |
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:54:15 AM UTC-4, Bart wrote: > On 27/05/2015 17:08, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > On 27/05/15 16:32, Morris Dovey wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >> C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature: > >> > >> if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */; > > > > If you don't like &&, you can avoid it as follows: > > > > if(abs(2 * x - (upper + lower)) < upper - lower) /* x in range! */ > > Is there any advantage in this compared with obvious version? If there is, I don't think the performance gain would make up for the loss of readability of the second version. The first style is idiomatic, though I tend to write it as if (lower_bound <= x && x <= upper_bound)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-29 10:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk97ap$259v$1@gwdu112.gwdg.de> |
| In reply to | #62734 |
On 05/28/15 17:54, Bartc wrote: > On 27/05/2015 17:08, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 27/05/15 16:32, Morris Dovey wrote: >>> C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature: >>> >>> if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */; >> >> If you don't like &&, you can avoid it as follows: >> >> if(abs(2 * x - (upper + lower)) < upper - lower) /* x in range! */ > > Is there any advantage in this compared with obvious version? > > I can see 6 operations here, compared with two in the original (plus the &&, but > that's not really an op, it's usually a conditional jump, and often the second > compare is not needed). Since branches are much more expensive than a pipelined extra compare, jumping is probably not what any compiler would emit for integer computations. For floats (and then fabs instead of abs) the second version might save a trip to memory and back if the comparisons are done in the FPU and the && in the ALU (and there is no fast route from FPU to ALU registers like on e.g. on some PowerPC/POWER CPUs, which can do non-branching FPU predicates with FSEL instead). But like any other micro-optimization: measure first to see if this is an issue at all. Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87d21lnckp.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62675 |
Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> writes:
[...]
> One that I've wondered about from time to time is
>
> switch (x)
> { case { expression }:
> /* case code */
> /* other cases */
> }
>
> where <expression> is code that examines x and yields TRUE (execute
> case code) or FALSE (do not execute case code) – of which an
> interesting subset/derivative possibility might be:
>
> switch (x)
> { case { function(x) }:
> /* case code */
> /* other cases */
> }
>
> which causes the named function to be invoked to produce the
> TRUE/FALSE result.
What's the point of specifying x in `switch (x)`? Can the expression
refer to things other than x? If it can't, it seems like an odd
restriction. If it can, it's just an if/else in disguise.
> C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature:
>
> if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */;
>
> :-)
--
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 | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mk57hv$n86$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62685 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> writes:
> [...]
>> One that I've wondered about from time to time is
>> switch (x)
>> { case { expression }:
>> /* case code */
>> /* other cases */
>> }
(snip)
>> which causes the named function to be invoked to produce the
>> TRUE/FALSE result.
> What's the point of specifying x in `switch (x)`?
I presume x should be true (1).
> Can the expression
> refer to things other than x? If it can't, it seems like an odd
> restriction. If it can, it's just an if/else in disguise.
The verilog switch/case allows expressions in the case, though most
often they are constant. It evaluated them in order, until the first
one that matches the switch argument. It would be unusual to put
a ocnstant on the switch(), and non-constant expressions on the case,
but legal.
-- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 13:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87vbfdlped.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62694 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> One that I've wondered about from time to time is
>
>>> switch (x)
>>> { case { expression }:
>>> /* case code */
>>> /* other cases */
>>> }
>
> (snip)
>>> which causes the named function to be invoked to produce the
>>> TRUE/FALSE result.
>
>> What's the point of specifying x in `switch (x)`?
>
> I presume x should be true (1).
That seems unlikely. Given the proposed syntax:
switch (x) {
case { expr1 }: ...;
case { expr2 }: ...;
case { expr3 }: ...;
default: ...;
}
I presume it would branch to the first case whose expression is true.
What I don't understand from Morris's description is the relationship
between x and the expressions. If x itself is expected to be true,
then there seems little point in specifying it. (I'm probably
making too big a deal over a minor oversight.)
You could have an enhanced form of switch statement where the switch
expression is somehow substituted into each of the case expressions.
For example:
int sign(int x) {
switch (x) {
case < 0: return -1;
case == 0: return 0;
case > 0: return +1;
}
}
But defining the syntax and how it's evaluated would be non-trivial, and
I'm not convinced it's that much better than an equivalent if/else chain
that refers to x explicitly in each expression.
--
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 | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mk5c7b$2o2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62699 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
(snip)
>>>> switch (x)
>>>> { case { expression }:
>>>> /* case code */
>>>> /* other cases */
>>>> }
>> (snip)
>>>> which causes the named function to be invoked to produce the
>>>> TRUE/FALSE result.
>>> What's the point of specifying x in `switch (x)`?
(snip)
(I wrote)
>> I presume x should be true (1).
> That seems unlikely. Given the proposed syntax:
> switch (x) {
> case { expr1 }: ...;
> case { expr2 }: ...;
> case { expr3 }: ...;
> default: ...;
> }
> I presume it would branch to the first case whose expression is true.
I was assuming it would take the first one equal to x, and so x
should be true (1, with the usual caveats for true and 1).
You could:
switch (3) {
case {i+j}: printf "i+j==3";
case {i-j}: printf "i-j==3";
case {i*j}: printf "i*j==3";
case {i/j}: printf "i/j==3";
}
(as I noted earlier, you can do this in verilog).
> What I don't understand from Morris's description is the relationship
> between x and the expressions. If x itself is expected to be true,
> then there seems little point in specifying it. (I'm probably
> making too big a deal over a minor oversight.)
Well, x could be false, or 3, or any other value.
> You could have an enhanced form of switch statement where the switch
> expression is somehow substituted into each of the case expressions.
> For example:
>
> int sign(int x) {
> switch (x) {
> case < 0: return -1;
> case == 0: return 0;
> case > 0: return +1;
> }
> }
> But defining the syntax and how it's evaluated would be non-trivial, and
> I'm not convinced it's that much better than an equivalent if/else chain
> that refers to x explicitly in each expression.
That is another way to do it.
-- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 15:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mk5aht$ubv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62685 |
On 5/27/15 12:40 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > What's the point of specifying x in `switch (x)`? Can the expression > refer to things other than x? If it can't, it seems like an odd > restriction. If it can, it's just an if/else in disguise. Because it's needed for the kind of case testing already in use. I think one of the goals should be to extend the existing syntax and capabilities without affecting any existing code in any way. Keith, I confess that I've never thought of 'switch' as anything other than a string of 'if' statements with (hidden) 'goto' statements. -- Morris Dovey http://www.iedu.com/Solar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87mw0plodh.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62700 |
Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> writes:
> On 5/27/15 12:40 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> What's the point of specifying x in `switch (x)`? Can the expression
>> refer to things other than x? If it can't, it seems like an odd
>> restriction. If it can, it's just an if/else in disguise.
>
> Because it's needed for the kind of case testing already in use.
I *think* I see what you're suggesting.
Correct me if I'm mistaken. You're suggesting a new kind of case label,
with the syntax
case { expression } :
where the surrounding switch statement branches to it if the expression
evaluates to a true value.
You'd be able to mix old-style and new-style case labels within the same
switch statement, right? So a sign function might be written like this:
int sign(int x) {
switch (x) {
case { x < 0 }: return -1;
case 0: return 0;
case { x > 0 }: return +1;
}
}
A new-style case label would evaluate its expression and would not have
to refer to the expression in the switch at all (unless you want to
impose that restriction, but it seems arbitrary).
> I think one of the goals should be to extend the existing syntax and
> capabilities without affecting any existing code in any way.
>
> Keith, I confess that I've never thought of 'switch' as anything other
> than a string of 'if' statements with (hidden) 'goto' statements.
It can be implemented that way, but the current restrictions are
specifically intended to make it implementable as a jump table.
For example, specifying the same value in two case labels is a
compile-time constraint violation. That rule would have be modified for
switch statements containing new-style case labels. Perhaps all the
old-style case labels would have to be distinct, and any new-style case
labels are evaluated only if none of the old-style labels match? It
seems overly complicated.
My sign() function could be written in current C as follows:
int sign(int x) {
switch (x) {
case 0:
return 0;
default:
if (x < 0) return -1;
else if (x > 0) return +1;
}
}
--
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 | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 22:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk5bs0$rad$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62700 |
On 27/05/15 21:47, Morris Dovey wrote:
<snip>
> Keith, I confess that I've never thought of 'switch' as anything other
> than a string of 'if' statements with (hidden) 'goto' statements.
As is usual for me, I prefer to look at things more abstractly. As soon
as I encountered the word "switch", I thought of a switch (odd, I know,
but there you are). Something that turns something else on or off.
Having learned what it actually does, though, I realised that it was
more like a railway switch (in the UK, we call them "points"), but not
/precisely/ like a railway switch, because a railway switch gives you
two possibilities (if/else), whereas switch(){} gives you several.
Railways often make for good programming analogies, though, so I spent a
little time thinking about it, and the best I could come up with was a
turntable. You get on, you spin the handle a few times depending on your
condition, and then you disembark and carry merrily on your way.
What I can't work into the railway analogy is "fall-through", which
seems a very odd thing to me. If we must have it, I'd have preferred to
have it explicitly coded in (thus eliminating the need for break). For
example, fallthrough BAZ; meaning "jump to case BAZ". But I'd prefer to
do without it completely.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 20:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3jqcmadm4tjd3grdr06mif5opqbs2d8qbu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #62703 |
On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:11:34 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>On 27/05/15 21:47, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Keith, I confess that I've never thought of 'switch' as anything other
>> than a string of 'if' statements with (hidden) 'goto' statements.
>
>
>As is usual for me, I prefer to look at things more abstractly. As soon
>as I encountered the word "switch", I thought of a switch (odd, I know,
>but there you are). Something that turns something else on or off.
>Having learned what it actually does, though, I realised that it was
>more like a railway switch (in the UK, we call them "points"), but not
>/precisely/ like a railway switch, because a railway switch gives you
>two possibilities (if/else), whereas switch(){} gives you several.
Except when there are three choices:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ThreeWayStub.jpg
I don't see why larger (more than three-way) switches would not be
possible as well, although I'm not sure they'd have much advantage
over a set of smaller switches. Likely they'd be a bit shorter, but
would have more severe speed limits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 02:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk5qh8$4ug$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62708 |
On 28/05/15 02:10, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:11:34 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Having learned what it actually does, though, I realised that it was
>>more like a railway switch (in the UK, we call them "points"), but not
>>/precisely/ like a railway switch, because a railway switch gives you
>>two possibilities (if/else), whereas switch(){} gives you several.
>
>
> Except when there are three choices:
That's the trouble with knowledge. When a fact is so obvious, so
blindingly obvious, that it is completely and utterly beyond dispute,
and there is no need whatsoever to even think about it, let alone check
it... that's precisely when some pedant[1] comes along and proves that
the fact is completely wrong.
Just as well, really - turntables make me dizzy.
[1] Just for the record, I consider the word "pedant" to be a compliment.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 03:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mk61jn$anl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62703 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> On 27/05/15 21:47, Morris Dovey wrote:
> <snip>
>> Keith, I confess that I've never thought of 'switch' as anything other
>> than a string of 'if' statements with (hidden) 'goto' statements.
> As is usual for me, I prefer to look at things more abstractly. As soon
> as I encountered the word "switch", I thought of a switch (odd, I know,
> but there you are). Something that turns something else on or off.
> Having learned what it actually does, though, I realised that it was
> more like a railway switch (in the UK, we call them "points"), but not
> /precisely/ like a railway switch, because a railway switch gives you
> two possibilities (if/else), whereas switch(){} gives you several.
It is usual for railway switchyards to put in a series of switches to
allow trains down any of the needed tracks. That is often in the form
of a binary tree, which is also a possible expansion of C switch.
But I learned Fortran and computed GOTO before C existed, and also
knew the generated assembly code for that, which is usually a jump
table.
> Railways often make for good programming analogies, though, so I spent a
> little time thinking about it, and the best I could come up with was a
> turntable. You get on, you spin the handle a few times depending on your
> condition, and then you disembark and carry merrily on your way.
Reminds me that some Fortran books, I believe from compiler vendors,
suggest using arithmetic IF in place of three way computed GOTO.
The original Fortran IF statement has the form:
IF(expression) stmt1, stmt2, stmt3
where the three stmts are statement numbers (labels), chosen as
expression is less than, equal to, or greater than zero, respectively.
So,
IF(I-2) stmt1, stmt2, stmt3
has a similar function to a three way computed GOTO.
(In the Fortran 66 standard, there is no default fall through.
It is undefined if the selection variable is out of range, possibly with
a branch to whatever happens to be in that position. Fixed in 1977.
> What I can't work into the railway analogy is "fall-through", which
> seems a very odd thing to me. If we must have it, I'd have preferred to
> have it explicitly coded in (thus eliminating the need for break). For
> example, fallthrough BAZ; meaning "jump to case BAZ". But I'd prefer to
> do without it completely.
Well, you do want fall through in the case of multiple case for the same
statement. Fall through also happens naturally with computed GOTO.
-- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web