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 13 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 20 Next page →
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 11:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <504A12A3.5010500@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #26022 |
On 09/06/2012 07:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> בתאריך יום חמישי, 6 בספטמבר 2012 21:25:43 UTC+1, מאת Ben Bacarisse: >>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >> >>> I'm still lost. Static analysis can be done when some aspects of what's >>> being analysed depends on input, can't it? When I prove termination of >>> a loop, that's static analysis is it not? The proof can be often done >>> even when the loop conditions and execution depend on input. It would >>> be rather pointless otherwise. >>> >> It depends. > > What is "it"? When "It depends" is given in response to a question, "it" refers to the answer to the question. An equivalent but longer statement would be "The answer to your question depends upon the circumstances". I agree that the connection between his response and your questions is, at best, tenuous, but the problem is not due to ambiguity in the referent of "it".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 22:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.c60fd3c87e8551b91c82.20120907224440BST.874nn9qzhz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26056 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > On 09/06/2012 07:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >>> בתאריך יום חמישי, 6 בספטמבר 2012 21:25:43 UTC+1, מאת Ben Bacarisse: >>>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> I'm still lost. Static analysis can be done when some aspects of what's >>>> being analysed depends on input, can't it? When I prove termination of >>>> a loop, that's static analysis is it not? The proof can be often done >>>> even when the loop conditions and execution depend on input. It would >>>> be rather pointless otherwise. >>>> >>> It depends. >> >> What is "it"? > > When "It depends" is given in response to a question, "it" refers to the > answer to the question. An equivalent but longer statement would be "The > answer to your question depends upon the circumstances". Thanks, but in fact I knew that. Given the difficulty in judging tone on Usenet, the only safe assumption is that you are making an honest attempt to help me out, despite what that means for your opinion of my language skills! Anyway, thanks again. > I agree that > the connection between his response and your questions is, at best, > tenuous, but the problem is not due to ambiguity in the referent of "it". -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 18:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <504A7C40.5090105@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #26094 |
On 09/07/2012 05:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > >> On 09/06/2012 07:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: ... >>>> It depends. >>> >>> What is "it"? >> >> When "It depends" is given in response to a question, "it" refers to the >> answer to the question. An equivalent but longer statement would be "The >> answer to your question depends upon the circumstances". > > Thanks, but in fact I knew that. Given the difficulty in judging tone > on Usenet, the only safe assumption is that you are making an honest > attempt to help me out, despite what that means for your opinion of my > language skills! Anyway, thanks again. It was an honest attempt to help you out - though I found it hard to imagine that your English skill were that bad. However, I had to assume that they were that bad - if they weren't, you would have had no reason to ask what "it" was. Now that I know that you did know what "it" was, I'm mystified by your decision to ask a question you already knew the answer to. To be fair, I'm also mystified by Malcolm's implied belief that his answer (the one dated 2012-09-05 07:57:11 -0700) was responsive to your question, but that's a much more complicated issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 01:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.92d01b35e6f4678cd9f5.20120908011006BST.87bohhpe75.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26097 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > On 09/07/2012 05:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: >> >>> On 09/06/2012 07:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > ... >>>>> It depends. >>>> >>>> What is "it"? >>> >>> When "It depends" is given in response to a question, "it" refers to the >>> answer to the question. An equivalent but longer statement would be "The >>> answer to your question depends upon the circumstances". >> >> Thanks, but in fact I knew that. Given the difficulty in judging tone >> on Usenet, the only safe assumption is that you are making an honest >> attempt to help me out, despite what that means for your opinion of my >> language skills! Anyway, thanks again. > > It was an honest attempt to help you out - though I found it hard to > imagine that your English skill were that bad. However, I had to assume > that they were that bad - if they weren't, you would have had no reason > to ask what "it" was. What a position to be in, what does one do? If you explain one of the basic words of the English language it will make me look stupid, but clearly I need help. Left with "it" unexplained I might continue to embarrass myself by asking about what "it" is. It's a bind and I'm sorry I put you in such a difficult position. > Now that I know that you did know what "it" was, > I'm mystified by your decision to ask a question you already knew the > answer to. And now, you are forced to form yet another low opinion of me. I am feart to explain further lest it drop even lower. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 22:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k2ebgr$6bb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26102 |
On 09/07/2012 08:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: ... >> It was an honest attempt to help you out - though I found it hard to >> imagine that your English skill were that bad. However, I had to assume >> that they were that bad - if they weren't, you would have had no reason >> to ask what "it" was. > > What a position to be in, what does one do? If you explain one of the > basic words of the English language it will make me look stupid, but > clearly I need help. Left with "it" unexplained I might continue to > embarrass myself by asking about what "it" is. It's a bind and I'm > sorry I put you in such a difficult position. > >> Now that I know that you did know what "it" was, >> I'm mystified by your decision to ask a question you already knew the >> answer to. > > And now, you are forced to form yet another low opinion of me. I am > feart to explain further lest it drop even lower. I thought I should place my response in context. My wife's not a native speaker of English, and her English is somewhat poor (though nowhere near as bad as my Mandarin). She has given me not merely permission, but orders, to correct her English whenever I notice her making a mistake, even when it feels rude to do so (as it often does). As a result, I've gotten into the habit of both a) expecting that oddly worded statements and questions often indicate a misunderstanding of English, and b) trying to correct that misunderstanding. I apologize for providing unneeded explanation. But it was an odd question to be asking. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 05:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <687e47f1-7582-4616-9ded-f3cc25af5482@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26097 |
בתאריך יום שישי, 7 בספטמבר 2012 23:59:19 UTC+1, מאת James Kuyper: > On 09/07/2012 05:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> To be fair, I'm also mystified by Malcolm's implied belief that his >> answer (the one dated 2012-09-05 07:57:11 -0700) was responsive to your >> question, but that's a much more complicated issue. > >I'm still lost. Static analysis can be done when some aspects of what's >being analysed depends on input, can't it? When I prove termination of >a loop, that's static analysis is it not? The proof can be often done >even when the loop conditions and execution depend on input. It would >be rather pointless otherwise. > So I gave the example of a loop governed by an input 64 bit integer. "It depends" is a bit of a loose way of talking. It is static analysis if you can prove that the loop will terminate, in a mathematical sense. But it's a useless static analysis for any practical purposes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 14:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.d38f778ff5df75d6bc2b.20120908142947BST.87392sod6c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26133 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > בתאריך יום שישי, 7 בספטמבר 2012 23:59:19 UTC+1, מאת James Kuyper: >> On 09/07/2012 05:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>> To be fair, I'm also mystified by Malcolm's implied belief that his >>> answer (the one dated 2012-09-05 07:57:11 -0700) was responsive to your >>> question, but that's a much more complicated issue. >> >>I'm still lost. Static analysis can be done when some aspects of what's >>being analysed depends on input, can't it? When I prove termination of >>a loop, that's static analysis is it not? The proof can be often done >>even when the loop conditions and execution depend on input. It would >>be rather pointless otherwise. Both quotations have the wrong attribution. > So I gave the example of a loop governed by an input 64 bit integer. > "It depends" is a bit of a loose way of talking. It is static analysis > if you can prove that the loop will terminate, in a mathematical > sense. But it's a useless static analysis for any practical purposes. I disagree. The proof shows the absence of one particular kind of problem. That's valuable to know: for some instances (particularly very long running instances) you know it's not fruitless to wait a bit longer for a result. Even if all expected input are cases that will effectively "run forever" you have at least got one matter settled: the problem is not termination, per se, but running time. What this has to do with VALs, I don't know. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 07:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Microsoft abandons the C language |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-9E9D90.07165708092012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #26137 |
In article <0.d38f778ff5df75d6bc2b.20120908142947BST.87392sod6c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > What this has to do with VALs, I don't know. It is a simple thing. It is the word of VAAL. -- 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 | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 15:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reâ: â¬Microsoft abandons the C language |
| Message-ID | <0.985943d9c00eda920f42.20120908155853BST.87oblgmuhe.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26142 |
Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes: > In article.€. <.€.0.€...€.d38f778ff5df75d6bc2b.20120908142947BST.87392sod6c.fsf@bsb.me.uk.€.>,.€. > .€. .€.Ben Bacarisse.€. > <.€.ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk.€.> > .€.wrote.€.:.€. etc. Something went wrong here. Your post has no Content-Type header and whatever guess my newsreader made, it look like the wrong one. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 17:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.2fb8e415656ec12fbec4.20120908173951BST.87ipbompt4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26137 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > בתאריך יום שבת, 8 בספטמבר 2012 14:29:49 UTC+1, מאת Ben Bacarisse: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> I disagree. The proof shows the absence of one particular kind of >> problem. That's valuable to know: for some instances (particularly very >> long running instances) you know it's not fruitless to wait a bit longer >> for a result. Even if all expected input are cases that will >> effectively "run forever" you have at least got one matter settled: the >> problem is not termination, per se, but running time. >> > If the input is a random, unsigned 64 bit value, the computer will almost > certainly break long before the loop will terminate. So the analysis is > useless as a description of how the system will behave. You seem to be talking about an odd program you've dreamt up that uses huge random input as a loop counter and has no apparent purpose other than to be an example of where arguments about loops become pointless. You are right, some silly programs should not have any static analysis done on them. Is that the point you were trug to make? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 10:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6582f6b6-728c-40a7-9839-3a73b658725e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26144 |
בתאריך יום שבת, 8 בספטמבר 2012 17:39:52 UTC+1, מאת Ben Bacarisse: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > You seem to be talking about an odd program you've dreamt up that uses > huge random input as a loop counter and has no apparent purpose other > than to be an example of where arguments about loops become pointless. > You are right, some silly programs should not have any static analysis > done on them. Is that the point you were trug to make? > But you also get analogous problems with more realistic problems. Consider this marks = load100marks(); qsort(marks, 100, sizeof(struct mark), compmarks); How much stack does it use? The maximum is probably 100 nested calls. But that can only happen if the input has been deliberately arranged so that qsort shows pessimal performance. The chance of it happening by accident is 1/100! Again, the computer is more likely to break. But what's the chance of someone deliberately arranging the input to break the program? You can't answer that by static analysis. So it depends what you mean.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 22:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.4746e0a34fcd4c8e5e61.20120908222902BST.87d31wmcf5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26145 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > בתאריך יום שבת, 8 בספטמבר 2012 17:39:52 UTC+1, מאת Ben Bacarisse: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> You seem to be talking about an odd program you've dreamt up that uses >> huge random input as a loop counter and has no apparent purpose other >> than to be an example of where arguments about loops become pointless. >> You are right, some silly programs should not have any static analysis >> done on them. Is that the point you were trug to make? >> > But you also get analogous problems with more realistic problems. > > Consider this > > marks = load100marks(); > qsort(marks, 100, sizeof(struct mark), compmarks); > > How much stack does it use? The maximum is probably 100 nested calls. But that > can only happen if the input has been deliberately arranged so that qsort > shows pessimal performance. The chance of it happening by accident is 1/100! Again, the computer is more likely to break. > But what's the chance of someone deliberately arranging the input to break the program? You can't answer that by static analysis. > > So it depends what you mean. I don't see how it depends on what I mean. What did I say (more specifically what interpretation of something I said) makes this example pertinent? Did I somehow suggest that all analyses are always useful in all cases? As far as I recall, the only assertion I make is that static analysis is no precluded by the use of VLAs. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-08 15:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <121671b1-b80c-4f32-afcb-35992a0cadcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26151 |
בתאריך יום שבת, 8 בספטמבר 2012 22:29:04 UTC+1, מאת Ben Bacarisse: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > I don't see how it depends on what I mean. What did I say (more > specifically what interpretation of something I said) makes this example > pertinent? Did I somehow suggest that all analyses are always useful in > all cases? > You said "if I can prove such and such about the behaviour of a program that depends on its input, am I doing static analysis or not?". The exact example you used was proving that loop would terminate, even though the stopping condition was determined by input. The answer is "it depends what you mean". In a formal sense you can prove things, but "static analysis" implies "a useful static analysis". Then the examples where the static analysis may be problematic are by no means contrived. If you mean "if we can calculate maximum bounds for the vlas, can we usually prove that the stack limit won't be breached?" the answer is obviously "yes".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-09 00:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.1b4a6b8b265bd358e801.20120909002436BST.871uicm72j.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26153 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > בתאריך יום שבת, 8 בספטמבר 2012 22:29:04 UTC+1, מאת Ben Bacarisse: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> I don't see how it depends on what I mean. What did I say (more >> specifically what interpretation of something I said) makes this example >> pertinent? Did I somehow suggest that all analyses are always useful in >> all cases? >> > You said "if I can prove such and such about the behaviour of a > program that depends on its input, am I doing static analysis or > not?". The exact example you used was proving that loop would > terminate, even though the stopping condition was determined by > input. The answer is "it depends what you mean". In a formal sense > you can prove things, but "static analysis" implies "a useful static > analysis". Then the examples where the static analysis may be > problematic are by no means contrived. That is exactly what I thought you meant. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 20:47 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <aatqlfFok6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #26019 |
On 09/ 7/12 08:25 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >> On 09/ 7/12 12:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 09/ 6/12 02:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>> What he is saying is that you test whether the call to malloc() has >>>>> succeeded, but simply assume that the vla allocation has succeeded. >>>>> But it's not a very good point. If you set a cap on the amount that >>>>> can be allocated on the stack, you can know that the stack won't be >>>>> breached, assuming non-recursive functions. That does raise the >>>>> issue, however, why use a vla at all, since you might as well >>>>> allocate the maximum as a fixed buffer? Arguably a vla provides >>>>> better documentation. >>>> >>>> It may provides better documentation, but it precludes static analysis >>>> of stack usage. >>> >>> Sorry, I'm repeating myself! How does a VLA preclude static analysis of >>> stack usage? >> >> Because you don't know until run time how long it will be. If you >> did, you wouldn't need a variable length. > > I'm still lost. Static analysis can be done when some aspects of what's > being analysed depends on input, can't it? When I prove termination of > a loop, that's static analysis is it not? The proof can be often done > even when the loop conditions and execution depend on input. It would > be rather pointless otherwise. I was thinking of the narrower case of the tools I have written to analyse (embedded) code to determine the amount of stack required for each thread. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-06 17:22 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <aaqq8vFrd9U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25944 |
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. Yes your suggestion provides some degree of
protection, although it is rather too cumbersome for general use.
I'd guess that where operation requires a large buffer, the overhead of
allocating the buffer is probably noise, so dynamic allocation is a
better choice.
I will concede the most uses for VALs are small buffers, but things that
start out small tend to grow...
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-06 13:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.df9c137d08265ba89a2c.20120906131224BST.87d31ztknr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #25986 |
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.
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.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-06 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f014667-5fba-42fb-992c-e7cc53eafa7b@r4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26000 |
On Sep 6, 8:12 am, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> Ian Collins <ian-n...@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.
>
> 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.
This is probably before my time, but why wasn't a NULL returning
'alloca' equivalent included in the standard?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-06 16:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.db274a7c3810578ba52b.20120906165713BST.87pq5zrvom.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #26008 |
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." -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 19:40 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87wr05yef0.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #26009 |
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? Phil -- Regarding TSA regulations: How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle? Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive, whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web