Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #24771 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-23 20:05 +0200 |
| Last post | 2012-09-13 20:39 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 386 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 20:05 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-23 20:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 21:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 12:44 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 22:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 14:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-23 22:07 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2012-08-23 16:20 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 22:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 09:33 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 13:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 13:32 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 13:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 15:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ozbear@bigpond.com (ozbear) - 2012-08-26 02:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-26 00:19 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ozbear@bigpond.com (ozbear) - 2012-08-27 00:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 13:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language CRNG <Spam@uce.gov> - 2012-08-23 16:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 18:01 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 15:21 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 19:04 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-23 23:26 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 19:14 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 11:35 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 21:03 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 18:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 21:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 21:08 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:41 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 02:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 02:58 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-26 15:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Leo Havmøller <rtxleh@nospam.nospam> - 2012-08-24 06:52 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-23 23:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-24 00:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:18 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Leo Havmøller <rtxleh@nospam.nospam> - 2012-08-24 09:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:53 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 03:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 15:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:43 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 03:30 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:11 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:10 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 02:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:58 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:59 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 05:28 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 07:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-25 12:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 05:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-25 16:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:22 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 10:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 11:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:31 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 01:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:36 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 22:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 10:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 04:27 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-01 11:35 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-09-02 00:52 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:21 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:59 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:55 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 00:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:17 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-24 06:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 06:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:58 -0600
Alternatives to Windows APIs in Metro style apps "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:20 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-24 12:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-25 21:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 01:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-27 20:58 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 17:12 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:25 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:03 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:35 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-28 01:13 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-28 01:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:26 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 09:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 02:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 11:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 03:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 05:05 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-03 00:32 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 01:16 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 01:03 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-28 18:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-28 20:35 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 21:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 21:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-28 22:29 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:09 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-28 23:16 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 17:24 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 14:37 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 00:15 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 01:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 02:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 10:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 10:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 13:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-29 07:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 16:20 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-29 12:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 20:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:51 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:32 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-08-29 19:27 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-08-29 20:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:06 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-29 08:21 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 15:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 15:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 16:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 11:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:52 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 07:27 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-29 20:00 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 16:36 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-29 21:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 03:07 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 21:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 11:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 04:00 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 13:55 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 13:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 23:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-29 18:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-30 13:43 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 03:37 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-30 08:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-31 05:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 14:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-30 06:39 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 20:08 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-30 22:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 01:04 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-30 16:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 12:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 04:40 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-31 17:26 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 08:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-31 12:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-31 20:17 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-31 14:41 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-01 00:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 12:48 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-02 20:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 17:07 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 12:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 20:49 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 18:58 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> - 2012-09-03 02:15 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 22:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-03 10:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 12:10 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-04 12:16 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-04 12:24 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-09-04 20:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-04 17:38 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2012-09-04 19:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 08:26 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 13:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 15:30 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 16:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 17:01 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 17:21 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 21:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-03 00:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 18:06 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:07 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 18:36 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-02 20:38 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 20:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:25 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-03 11:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-01 13:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-01 12:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 12:41 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 14:08 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-01 11:54 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 20:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 08:55 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-04 09:25 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 17:50 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-04 19:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 22:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-04 22:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:13 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-05 08:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-05 07:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-06 17:30 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 13:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 07:13 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 21:25 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-06 15:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 00:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 11:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:44 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 18:59 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 01:10 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 22:45 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 05:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 14:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-08 07:16 -0700
Re: Reâ: â¬Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 15:58 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 17:39 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 10:21 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 22:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 15:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-09 00:24 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 20:47 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-06 17:22 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 13:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-09-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 16:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:40 +0300
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-10 17:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 22:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-11 11:13 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 22:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 07:18 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 21:11 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-06 16:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 02:27 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-06 15:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-09-08 09:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-08 01:23 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-10 10:48 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-02 15:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 21:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 14:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 12:55 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 19:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-01 21:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 02:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 19:07 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-31 11:57 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-31 11:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-31 21:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:54 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-30 08:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 14:57 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-28 21:19 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-28 22:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 14:36 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 09:40 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:13 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 01:01 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 22:26 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-02 12:28 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 16:48 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language timprince <tprince@computer.org> - 2012-08-25 23:20 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 20:55 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 02:24 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 10:45 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Tim Prince <tprince@nospamcomputer.org> - 2012-08-26 11:01 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 13:53 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 21:54 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 08:52 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 01:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 11:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 04:07 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 13:09 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 09:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 16:36 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:18 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-28 13:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 10:03 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-31 17:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:12 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 11:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 12:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 19:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:34 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:26 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 02:53 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:36 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 03:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 04:37 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 00:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 11:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 11:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 05:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 15:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-26 15:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:38 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-27 10:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 02:42 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-27 20:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-28 10:51 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-28 03:52 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-28 12:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 18:25 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-29 11:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-26 11:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:01 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 07:33 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 00:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-26 11:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-26 14:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:30 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-26 22:43 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 00:32 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-27 01:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 03:00 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 10:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 04:14 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 04:18 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 10:56 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 03:40 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-27 04:05 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 15:13 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 23:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:16 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 01:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-28 14:10 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 17:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:45 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 10:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 02:54 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 13:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 23:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 13:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 00:20 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 15:24 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2012-08-27 00:48 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-13 19:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-13 13:32 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-13 20:39 +0000
Page 14 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 20 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 22:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.9633e94a4079b8c47e1b.20120907224654BST.87y5klpktt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26063 |
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> writes: >> <snip> >> > This is probably before my time, but why wasn't a NULL returning >> > 'alloca' equivalent included in the standard? >> >> From "Rationale for International Standard - Programming Languages - C" >> (Revision 5.10, April-2003): >> >> "Some implementations provide a function, often called alloca, which >> allocates the requested object from automatic storage; and the object >> is automatically freed when the calling function exits. Such a >> function is not efficiently implementable in a variety of >> environments, so it was not adopted in the Standard." > > And how are VLA's more efficiently implementable in those > environments? That question occurred to me too, but since I could not even come up with an example of one of these environments, I decided I should just leave the quote to stand on its own. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-10 17:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d312i9-hhn.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #26063 |
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > > ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> writes: > > <snip> > > > This is probably before my time, but why wasn't a NULL returning > > > 'alloca' equivalent included in the standard? > > > > From "Rationale for International Standard - Programming Languages - C" > > (Revision 5.10, April-2003): > > > > "Some implementations provide a function, often called alloca, which > > allocates the requested object from automatic storage; and the object > > is automatically freed when the calling function exits. Such a > > function is not efficiently implementable in a variety of > > environments, so it was not adopted in the Standard." > > And how are VLA's more efficiently implementable in those environments? The context in which they can occur is much more limited. Imagine what would happen in a typical implementation if a call to alloca() occured in the middle of the argument list to a function call: you've got some arguments pushed on the stack, then the allocated space, then some more arguments.... -- Larry Jones I don't need to improve! Everyone ELSE does! -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-10 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20120910153840.602@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #26207 |
On 2012-09-10, lawrence.jones@siemens.com <lawrence.jones@siemens.com> wrote: > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> > ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> writes: >> > <snip> >> > > This is probably before my time, but why wasn't a NULL returning >> > > 'alloca' equivalent included in the standard? >> > >> > From "Rationale for International Standard - Programming Languages - C" >> > (Revision 5.10, April-2003): >> > >> > "Some implementations provide a function, often called alloca, which >> > allocates the requested object from automatic storage; and the object >> > is automatically freed when the calling function exits. Such a >> > function is not efficiently implementable in a variety of >> > environments, so it was not adopted in the Standard." >> >> And how are VLA's more efficiently implementable in those environments? > > The context in which they can occur is much more limited. Imagine what > would happen in a typical implementation if a call to alloca() occured > in the middle of the argument list to a function call: you've got some > arguments pushed on the stack, then the allocated space, then some more > arguments.... That can all be "specified away". Implementations of alloca usually publish various restrictions on its use. It would not be the first half-broken, fragile thing that is specified in C. Like, oh, how non-volatile locals turn into a pumpkin if they are modified between setjmp and longjmp. The quote from the Rationale above is all we have as the reason for why alloca was not codified, and we have to take that as the complete reason. Nothing is said about any contextual problems with where alloca calls may be placed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-11 11:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v014i9-dcp.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #26210 |
Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote: > On 2012-09-10, lawrence.jones@siemens.com <lawrence.jones@siemens.com> wrote: > > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > >> > ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> writes: > >> > <snip> > >> > > This is probably before my time, but why wasn't a NULL returning > >> > > 'alloca' equivalent included in the standard? > >> > > >> > From "Rationale for International Standard - Programming Languages - C" > >> > (Revision 5.10, April-2003): > >> > > >> > "Some implementations provide a function, often called alloca, which > >> > allocates the requested object from automatic storage; and the object > >> > is automatically freed when the calling function exits. Such a > >> > function is not efficiently implementable in a variety of > >> > environments, so it was not adopted in the Standard." > >> > >> And how are VLA's more efficiently implementable in those environments? > > > > The context in which they can occur is much more limited. Imagine what > > would happen in a typical implementation if a call to alloca() occured > > in the middle of the argument list to a function call: you've got some > > arguments pushed on the stack, then the allocated space, then some more > > arguments.... > > That can all be "specified away". Implementations of alloca usually publish > various restrictions on its use. The standard would have to codify the union of all the restrictions from all of the implementations, some of which *aren't* documented, in order to allow the existing implementations to conform. If it missed any, then impacted implementations would have to change (presumably in an undesirable fashion) or remain non-conforming. -- Larry Jones My brain is trying to kill me. -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-10 22:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20120910153539.627@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #26063 |
On 2012-09-07, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> writes: >> <snip> >> > This is probably before my time, but why wasn't a NULL returning >> > 'alloca' equivalent included in the standard? >> >> From "Rationale for International Standard - Programming Languages - C" >> (Revision 5.10, April-2003): >> >> "Some implementations provide a function, often called alloca, which >> allocates the requested object from automatic storage; and the object >> is automatically freed when the calling function exits. Such a >> function is not efficiently implementable in a variety of >> environments, so it was not adopted in the Standard." > > And how are VLA's more efficiently implementable in those environments? The difference is that the people who wrote the above weren't armchair language inventors masquerading as an ISO committee. They were doing the proper job of taking stock of what is there, codifying it and in general doing what was necessary, and avoiding what was unnecessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 07:18 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <aasb8fFh6U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #26000 |
On 09/ 7/12 12:12 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 09/ 5/12 06:59 PM, jacob navia wrote:
>>> Le 05/09/12 00:13, Ian Collins a écrit :
>>>> Your example proves the point: you test the malloc, but assume the VLA.
>>>
>>> int fn(void)
>>> {
>>> int i;
>>> }
>>>
>>> You do not test for "int i;"
>>>
>>> We should ban then all stack allocation?
>>>
>>> What are you saying actually? I do not understand what you want.
>>
>> VLAs are a vulnerability waiting to happen. Not as bad as gets, but
>> dodgy none the less.
>
> I don't understand this. I need more information. My guess is that you
> are referring to environments that don't check stack accesses, but
> that's not really the fault of the language feature.
In the smaller embedded world (without protected memory), whose are the
norm.
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-06 21:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.ebfd63a48a6fd3f3facf.20120906211136BST.87ehmesyh3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26015 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 09/ 7/12 12:12 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 09/ 5/12 06:59 PM, jacob navia wrote:
>>>> Le 05/09/12 00:13, Ian Collins a écrit :
>>>>> Your example proves the point: you test the malloc, but assume the VLA.
>>>>
>>>> int fn(void)
>>>> {
>>>> int i;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> You do not test for "int i;"
>>>>
>>>> We should ban then all stack allocation?
>>>>
>>>> What are you saying actually? I do not understand what you want.
>>>
>>> VLAs are a vulnerability waiting to happen. Not as bad as gets, but
>>> dodgy none the less.
>>
>> I don't understand this. I need more information. My guess is that you
>> are referring to environments that don't check stack accesses, but
>> that's not really the fault of the language feature.
>
> In the smaller embedded world (without protected memory), whose are
> the norm.
You mean VLAs larger than typical stack allocations are not safe in some
environments? That's very different to "VLAs are a vulnerability
waiting to happen".
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-06 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln8vcmu2kx.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #26000 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
[...]
> There's a point I've been meaning to make, and I might as well inject
> here since it is at least tangentially related to the above. On systems
> that check stack access I don't see anything logically different between
> using a VLA and doing the very common
>
> if ((p = malloc(size)) == NULL) {
> fprintf(stderr, "Eek! Out or memory.\n");
> exit(EXIT_FAILURE):
> }
>
> Sure, you might have less stack available, and the error message you get
> from a stack overflow might be more cryptic, but VLAs are criticised on
> other grounds entirely.
At least as far as the language definition is concerned, there's
a big difference.
For the malloc() case, if the allocation fails, it's guaranteed that
(a) the "Eek!" message will be printed, and (b) whatever statement
follows that if statement will not be executed.
For the equivalent VLA code, there is no such guarantee; the behavior
is undefined.
If you're happy depending on guarantees made by your system, not
by the language, that stack overflows will cause your program to
terminate immediately, then of course you're free to do so, but
I think it's important to be clear about where those guarantees
come from.
(The malloc() case isn't that simple in real life; on Linux, the
malloc() call can appear to succeed, but your program or another one
can crash when you try to access the supposedly allocated memory.
It's debatable whether that behavior is conforming.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 02:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.4240627ccd4436353d7b.20120907022737BST.87ligmr59y.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26023 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> [...]
>> There's a point I've been meaning to make, and I might as well inject
>> here since it is at least tangentially related to the above. On systems
>> that check stack access I don't see anything logically different between
>> using a VLA and doing the very common
>>
>> if ((p = malloc(size)) == NULL) {
>> fprintf(stderr, "Eek! Out or memory.\n");
>> exit(EXIT_FAILURE):
>> }
>>
>> Sure, you might have less stack available, and the error message you get
>> from a stack overflow might be more cryptic, but VLAs are criticised on
>> other grounds entirely.
>
> At least as far as the language definition is concerned, there's
> a big difference.
>
> For the malloc() case, if the allocation fails, it's guaranteed that
> (a) the "Eek!" message will be printed, and (b) whatever statement
> follows that if statement will not be executed.
>
> For the equivalent VLA code, there is no such guarantee; the behavior
> is undefined.
Is that not also the case for the malloc code if the variable p can not
be allocated? Provided the "one program" condition of 5.4.2.1 is met,
I'd always assumed that one can't, from the formal point of view of the
language definition, depend on any automatic objects being successfully
created.
If that's right, almost all C code is undefined in the face of stack
allocation failures. One can make statistical arguments about what's
likely of course (quite apart from relying on extra-standard guarantees)
but you are making a formal distinction, it seems, rather than a
practical one.
> If you're happy depending on guarantees made by your system, not
> by the language, that stack overflows will cause your program to
> terminate immediately, then of course you're free to do so, but
> I think it's important to be clear about where those guarantees
> come from.
Yes. I thought I had been with the "On systems that..." condition but
maybe I did not say enough. I certainly could have said more.
> (The malloc() case isn't that simple in real life; on Linux, the
> malloc() call can appear to succeed, but your program or another one
> can crash when you try to access the supposedly allocated memory.
> It's debatable whether that behavior is conforming.)
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-06 15:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20120906083608.48@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #25944 |
On 2012-09-06, Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:59:24 AM UTC+3, jacob navia wrote:
>> Le 05/09/12 00:13, Ian Collins a écrit :
>>
>> > Your example proves the point: you test the malloc, but assume the VLA.
>>
>> int fn(void)
>> {
>> int i;
>> }
>>
>> You do not test for "int i;"
>>
>> We should ban then all stack allocation?
>>
>> What are you saying actually? I do not understand what you want.
>
> The VLA is actually non-standard alloca() standardized behind array
> declaration syntax. Using alloca() for up to few hundred bytes was
> generally fine and improved performance. Nothing revolutionary there.
>
> Bad usage of alloca() resulted with some legendary stories about
> most memorable stack overflow fun. Similar things will happen with
> those VLAs.
Last I looked, the dynamic linker in glibc (i.e. on most Linux installations)
uses alloca for allocating tables. The allocation is proportional to the number
of symbols to be resolved or something like that. Found this the hard way when
I was trying to reduce the thread stack sizes in a large application with many
threads. The main thread wanted more than a megabyte, and crashed even before
main was invoked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 09:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <504af821$0$13277$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #25944 |
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:61646ca5-d5df-46e3-8c16-14d387b72ad1@googlegroups.com...
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:59:24 AM UTC+3, jacob navia wrote:
>> Le 05/09/12 00:13, Ian Collins a écrit :
>>
>> > Your example proves the point: you test the malloc, but assume the VLA.
>>
>> int fn(void)
>> {
>> int i;
>> }
>>
>> You do not test for "int i;"
don't you know that? as some other said
i32 fun(u32 v)
{u32 i, j;
u32 a[v];
if( (&i)==0 || (&j)==0 || (&a)==0 )
{return error(123);}
computation
}
int main(void)
{u32 v;
input(&v, 99);
fun(v);
}
in pratice in one stack intensive call to function fun()
one has to check
not only if "a" is ok
but if "i", and "j" above are ok too...
[intensize means, eg fun() is call inside a recurseve function that
consume much stack space
or fun is a recursive function
or a[v] is big or v is not know in the run time
] one has to verify if stack variable are ok
how the a compiler can do that: i don't know...
Buon Giorno
>> We should ban then all stack allocation?
>>
>> What are you saying actually? I do not understand what you want.
>The VLA is actually non-standard alloca() standardized behind array
>declaration syntax. Using alloca() for up to few hundred bytes was
>generally fine and improved performance. Nothing revolutionary there.
>Bad usage of alloca() resulted with some legendary stories about
>most memorable stack overflow fun. Similar things will happen with
>those VLAs.
>So Ian is worried. Jacob maybe uses it nicely. Next noob in team
>however breaks it and then it is harder to track down than alloca().
>VLA is not that easy to find with text search unlike alloca().
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 01:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-2D39E7.01232408092012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #26128 |
In article <504af821$0$13277$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>, "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> wrote: > or a[v] is big or v is not know in the run time > ] one has to verify if stack variable are ok > > how the a compiler can do that: i don't know... They don't. In the good old days the stack descended into the heap to the amusement of everyone as the stack and heap used the same bytes. In these days of modern times any system with halfway decent VM will leave unmapped pages around the stack so that overflows will page fault which sends an overflow indication to the program. That still depends on rational stack frame size. For example on a 32 bit machine, allocating auto char a[300000000000] could move stack pointers past guard pages and still kill the heap or anything else. -- My name Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time. You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character. Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void, Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-10 10:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k2kd1e$ual$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26129 |
"Don't make my brown eyes China Blue" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:chine.bleu-2D39E7.01232408092012@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <504af821$0$13277$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>, > "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> wrote: > >> or a[v] is big or v is not know in the run time >> ] one has to verify if stack variable are ok >> >> how the a compiler can do that: i don't know... > In these days of modern times any system with halfway decent VM will leave > unmapped pages around the stack so that overflows will page fault which > sends an > overflow indication to the program. > > That still depends on rational stack frame size. For example on a 32 bit > machine, allocating auto char a[300000000000] could move stack pointers > past > guard pages and still kill the heap or anything else. The compiler will know about such a large allocation and generate appropriate code that does extra checks (if it thinks it's likely to skip a page). Although your example of allocating 300GB will likely generate a compile-time error. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln8vcsgllf.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25758 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
>
>> In article <k1qtag$6qk$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk
>> <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>
>>> If it can be recovered by restarting, then it obviously wasn't
>>> unrecoverable in the first place.
>>
>> I see you've never had to deal with database deadlocks.
>
> You fix nothing by restarting a process. The only thing that you manage to
> do is to get the process back in a state where the problems caused by your
> bugs aren't yet being triggered. Meanwhile, your bugs are still there, and
> it's only a matter of time before someone is forced to deal with the same
> problems caused by the same bugs.
[...]
Restarting a process certainly does fix whatever problems were
caused by the process not running, because now it's running again,
and presumably doing useful work.
Yes, the bug is still there, and you may have to restart the process
again in a few months. And yes, someone will have to deal with
the problems caused by the bugs -- by restarting the process at
the cost of a few minutes of downtime.
Nobody is saying that it's a perfect solution, or that it fixes
the bug. But sometimes it's good enough, and often *better* than
dropping everything else you're doing to fix the bug *right now*.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 11:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k221vj$7fv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25767 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > Restarting a process certainly does fix whatever problems were > caused by the process not running, because now it's running again, > and presumably doing useful work. If the process crashed due to fundamental problems of how the software was written, which includes adding vulnerabilities such as a propencity to overflow the call stack, then I believe that we can agree that restarting the process does nothing to fix this sort of problem. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9371d61f-425f-417b-859b-284efd73a3af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25758 |
בתאריך יום ראשון, 2 בספטמבר 2012 20:05:15 UTC+1, מאת Rui Maciel: > Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote: > > > You fix nothing by restarting a process. The only thing that you manage to > do is to get the process back in a state where the problems caused by your > bugs aren't yet being triggered. Meanwhile, your bugs are still there, and > it's only a matter of time before someone is forced to deal with the same > problems caused by the same bugs. > So the question is, how much time, and what's at stake. Are we talking about an aeroplane falling out of the sky, or one in a million games of Space Invaders being aborted?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-31 21:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k1r519$rc8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25638 |
Le 31/08/12 13:40, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue a écrit : > I find it acceptable to crash a couple times a year due to unrecoverable > resource contentions that can only be recoverred by restarting anyway. The problem is that you aren't the only one that has this attitude. Now suppose that your software has just 1% failure probability and all by itself crashes twice a year. If I use 100 components in my software (compiler, linker, operating system, libraries I am interfacing with) the probability that the program crashes is almost one... In my compiler system, I can emit millions of instructions correctly, it suffices of a single one and the program will crash. Your attitude is acceptable in an environment where: 1) You know the components you use have a MUCH lower failure rate than 0.01% 2) You have a correct method of handling all possible errors, for instance restarting a fresh copy automatically, etc. In other cases you are contributing to the general problem of unreliable software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-31 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-AD9DAD.14020731082012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #25666 |
In article <k1r519$rc8$1@speranza.aioe.org>, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: > In my compiler system, I can emit millions of instructions correctly, it > suffices of a single one and the program will crash. You're confusing two separate issues: programs that have errors and programs that have resource demands that can't be met a few times a year due to activities by the humans or other processes. The latter cannot be corrected within the process; you can use convoluted code everywhere to deal with rare events you can't correct, with the risk the convoluted code is in error, or just abort, catch the signal and report with a write(2,...), then exit. No matter how convolutedly you code, at some point the system can be so hosed you can't do anything. The question then is how defensively you want to code, with the risk that the error is actually in the defensive code, and at what point you want to deal with the reality that sometimes life sucks. No amount of C code is going to stick the ethernet cable back in. -- My name Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time. You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character. Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void, Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 12:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k206i5$jhe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25671 |
On 31-Aug-12 16:02, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote: > In article <k1r519$rc8$1@speranza.aioe.org>, jacob navia > <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: >> In my compiler system, I can emit millions of instructions correctly, it >> suffices of a single one and the program will crash. > > You're confusing two separate issues: programs that have errors and > programs that have resource demands that can't be met a few times a year > due to activities by the humans or other processes. The latter cannot be > corrected within the process; you can use convoluted code everywhere to > deal with rare events you can't correct, with the risk the convoluted > code is in error, or just abort, catch the signal and report with a > write(2,...), then exit. If that is what you're actually doing, then the program is not "crashing"; it is detecting an error condition, reporting it and gracefully restarting. That's fine, for most customers. An example of crashing is when bad input causes your code to dereference a null pointer, which results in the OS killing your process. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 19:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k2082d$a1g$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25671 |
Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote: > You're confusing two separate issues: programs that have errors and > programs that have resource demands that can't be met a few times a year > due to activities by the humans or other processes. No matter how you cut it, bursting the call stack is not a mere resource contention problem. No one who knew what he was doing would describe it as such, let alone try to downplay it as a irrelevant problem which can be perfectly fixed by restarting the process. > The latter cannot be > corrected within the process; you can use convoluted code everywhere to > deal with rare events you can't correct > , with the risk the convoluted code > is in error, or just abort, catch the signal and report with a > write(2,...), then exit. > > No matter how convolutedly you code, at some point the system can be so > hosed you can't do anything. The question then is how defensively you want > to code, with the risk that the error is actually in the defensive code, > and at what point you want to deal with the reality that sometimes life > sucks. > > No amount of C code is going to stick the ethernet cable back in. The ethernet cable doesn't pop out of the socket if you burst the call stack. The cable also stays where it is if a call to malloc() fails. There are plenty of programs which were written in C that don't manage to suffer from that sort of problem, mainly because they were actually written by people who knew what they were doing. I'm talking about people who actually were disturbed enough by some types of errors such as bursting the call stack, that managed to do a good job avoiding them. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web