Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90018 > unrolled thread
| Started by | G G <gdotone@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 354 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700
Re: double free Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:45 +1200
Re: double free Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-07-05 07:08 -0400
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 10:50 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 11:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 19:07 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-05 12:16 +0000
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 08:43 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-05 14:57 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-10 18:49 +0000
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:03 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 17:25 -0700
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-06 19:09 +0000
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-06 15:22 -0400
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-09 06:13 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 10:16 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 08:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:28 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:41 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-09 20:27 +0200
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 11:31 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 20:14 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 15:34 -0400
Re: double free jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-09 14:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:10 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:14 -0400
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:24 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:31 -0400
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 20:50 -0400
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 15:50 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:32 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:01 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-11 10:07 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 08:15 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 06:53 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 10:35 -0600
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 09:48 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:01 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 13:03 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:57 -0700
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-27 13:29 +0100
Re: double free Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:07 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:05 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 05:31 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 01:07 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:39 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:53 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 04:11 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 08:47 -0400
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:05 -0400
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 17:43 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 17:32 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 20:34 -0600
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-10 06:25 +0000
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-11 08:02 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 11:01 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:07 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 12:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:59 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 13:07 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:38 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:11 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 18:54 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:09 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 19:47 +0100
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-11 19:08 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:48 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:49 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 23:20 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:26 +0530
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 22:34 -0700
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-12 06:39 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 00:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 01:16 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:27 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:48 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:46 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:42 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:59 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 12:46 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:08 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 18:51 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 11:28 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 19:53 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 12:19 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-12 11:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 16:18 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:44 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:24 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:34 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:40 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:22 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 18:33 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-13 14:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 19:16 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:15 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:04 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-18 11:10 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 09:36 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 11:52 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 13:18 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 16:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:21 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:35 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:08 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 10:01 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 18:20 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 09:26 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:57 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 23:41 +0530
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 19:47 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 11:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:03 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 20:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 13:12 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 12:36 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 07:14 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 16:41 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:17 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 20:42 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:51 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 21:50 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 14:17 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:53 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 20:55 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 22:21 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 10:35 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 02:55 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 04:05 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-24 14:03 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 14:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 15:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 16:01 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 11:36 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:52 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 12:14 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 11:13 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:52 -0500
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-25 09:59 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:32 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 07:39 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 10:55 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:30 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:11 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:39 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 20:25 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:51 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 13:18 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:23 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:36 +0100
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-02 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-02 12:33 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 14:07 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 10:19 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 08:56 -0800
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 12:31 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:42 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 08:46 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:16 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:27 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:20 -0700
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-12 12:47 -0400
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:21 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 23:27 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 16:28 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 00:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 08:43 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:21 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 12:56 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:35 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:34 -0400
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-15 05:57 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 04:30 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:41 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 06:10 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 15:11 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 19:20 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:24 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:51 -0500
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 02:18 -0700
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-15 07:12 -0500
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-15 13:14 +0100
Re: double free Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-18 09:28 +0200
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 18:43 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:24 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:50 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:02 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:51 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:22 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:08 -0500
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 17:33 +0800
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 05:02 -0700
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 21:15 +0800
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:48 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 08:02 -0700
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 01:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 03:07 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:01 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 22:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 14:31 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 23:03 +0100
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-13 17:53 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 16:18 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 16:19 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 22:44 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-14 09:44 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 17:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 07:13 -0700
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:18 -0500
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:46 -0400
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:59 -0500
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-14 23:47 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:35 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 15:16 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:19 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 08:39 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:54 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 16:45 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:18 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 21:46 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 23:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 01:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 18:22 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:48 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:40 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 10:09 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 11:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:11 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 12:30 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:41 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 13:04 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-19 10:00 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:46 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:30 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:53 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:37 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 05:22 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 07:07 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 19:31 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 12:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 23:16 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 16:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 12:34 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 20:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 13:15 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 21:27 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-14 21:31 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:46 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 13:32 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 13:46 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 06:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:23 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 09:38 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:51 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:22 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:02 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 11:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:27 -0700
Re: double free Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-07-21 10:02 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-21 10:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:27 +0100
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-29 00:42 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:59 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 15:22 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 15:59 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 16:39 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 16:55 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:20 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 19:03 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:22 +0100
sizeof (was Re: double free) Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-19 14:44 -0400
Re: sizeof (was Re: double free) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:31 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 22:46 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 15:19 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 00:21 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 12:08 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:41 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 11:23 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 03:40 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 10:33 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:47 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:18 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:53 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:56 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 22:39 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:57 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:58 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:23 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:44 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 19:10 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 20:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:11 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 21:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:01 +0100
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 09:09 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:16 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-15 13:51 +0000
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-15 12:04 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-11 17:51 +0200
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:19 +0000
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 08:57 -0600
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 11:13 -0400
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-05 09:05 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:38 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:34 -0700
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-06 04:10 +0100
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 21:27 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 02:53 -0700
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 06:09 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 07:53 -0700
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-06 11:12 +0100
Re: double free Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:52 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800
Page 10 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 18 Next page →
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 22:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57856cf1.441531@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90230 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 11/07/2016 21:19, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > >> array = malloc(soezif*sioezf*siozef); > >> array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef); > >> array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef); > >> array = malloc(sozief*soizef*sozeif); > >> array = malloc(sieozf*sizoef*sizoef); > >> array = malloc(szeoif*seizof*sozeif); > > > > Putting aside the absurd example, I'd make two remarks: > > > > 1. In my editor the sizeof is bright blue so it stands out very clearly > > despite your best attempts to hide it. > > (I hope there was only one? I was in a hurry to go out and forgot to check!) That just shows _how much of an imbecile_ you are playing at (!) being here. > My point still stands So does mine. Fuck you. _Even you_ are not _actually_ as much an imbecile as the straw man you're pretending to be here, and the rest of us even less so. Nobody sane will ever write code to this low a standard. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 23:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm3qrp$5ed$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90303 |
On 12/07/2016 23:21, Richard Bos wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> On 11/07/2016 21:19, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>>> array = malloc(soezif*sioezf*siozef); >>>> array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef); >>>> array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef); >>>> array = malloc(sozief*soizef*sozeif); >>>> array = malloc(sieozf*sizoef*sizoef); >>>> array = malloc(szeoif*seizof*sozeif); >>> >>> Putting aside the absurd example, I'd make two remarks: >>> >>> 1. In my editor the sizeof is bright blue so it stands out very clearly >>> despite your best attempts to hide it. >> >> (I hope there was only one? I was in a hurry to go out and forgot to check!) > > That just shows _how much of an imbecile_ you are playing at (!) being > here. Calm down. We're talking about whether to always have brackets following sizeof's argument. That is all... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnlh16h1wz.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90304 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 12/07/2016 23:21, Richard Bos wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/07/2016 21:19, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> array = malloc(soezif*sioezf*siozef);
>>>>> array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef);
>>>>> array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef);
>>>>> array = malloc(sozief*soizef*sozeif);
>>>>> array = malloc(sieozf*sizoef*sizoef);
>>>>> array = malloc(szeoif*seizof*sozeif);
>>>>
>>>> Putting aside the absurd example, I'd make two remarks:
>>>>
>>>> 1. In my editor the sizeof is bright blue so it stands out very clearly
>>>> despite your best attempts to hide it.
>>>
>>> (I hope there was only one? I was in a hurry to go out and forgot to check!)
>>
>> That just shows _how much of an imbecile_ you are playing at (!) being
>> here.
>
> Calm down.
>
> We're talking about whether to always have brackets following sizeof's
> argument.
>
> That is all...
I agree. I completely disagree with BartC on the technical point being
discussed, but Richard Bos, you were out of line.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 00:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9cfaefc2-92a1-4e03-aa6b-d071a0988c87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90305 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 12:28:19 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>>>> array = malloc(soezif*sioezf*siozef); > >>>>> array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef); > >>>>> array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef); > >>>>> array = malloc(sozief*soizef*sozeif); > >>>>> array = malloc(sieozf*sizoef*sizoef); > >>>>> array = malloc(szeoif*seizof*sozeif); > >>>> > >> > >> That just shows _how much of an imbecile_ you are playing at (!) being > >> here. > > > > Calm down. > > > > We're talking about whether to always have brackets following sizeof's > > argument. > > > > That is all... > > I agree. I completely disagree with BartC on the technical point being > discussed, but Richard Bos, you were out of line. > Bart makes the point too strongly. By creating a mass of identifiers similar to sizeof and burying a sizeof operator in them you can hide the operator. But no one would do that in real code. It's not an "imbecilic" contribution, however. It is very likely you'll have identifiers like size_t, size, signofx and so on that mean that it's hard to pick out that sizeof is an operator rather than an identifier. The basic point is right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 08:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm4rfc$k83$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90310 |
On 13/07/16 08:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 12:28:19 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>>>> array = malloc(soezif*sioezf*siozef); >>>>>>> array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef); >>>>>>> array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef); >>>>>>> array = malloc(sozief*soizef*sozeif); >>>>>>> array = malloc(sieozf*sizoef*sizoef); >>>>>>> array = malloc(szeoif*seizof*sozeif); >>>>>> >>>> >>>> That just shows _how much of an imbecile_ you are playing at (!) being >>>> here. >>> >>> Calm down. >>> >>> We're talking about whether to always have brackets following sizeof's >>> argument. >>> >>> That is all... >> >> I agree. I completely disagree with BartC on the technical point being >> discussed, but Richard Bos, you were out of line. >> > Bart makes the point too strongly. He fails to make the point /at all/. > By creating a mass of identifiers similar to sizeof and burying a > sizeof operator in them you can hide the operator. But no one would > do that in real code. > It's not an "imbecilic" contribution, however. Well, it's not far off. I can't condone Mr Bos's tone, but I more or less concur with his content. > It is very likely you'll have identifiers like size_t, size, > signofx and so on that mean that it's hard to pick out that > sizeof is an operator rather than an identifier. No, it isn't hard /at all/. > The basic point is right. He doesn't have a basic point. He has a reluctance to learn C and a determination to find things to complain about that nobody else cares about even remotely, but what he does not have is a point, basic or otherwise. And the funny thing, the weird thing, is that this basic point, this point that he doesn't have, is completely wrong. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 11:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm54oa$hj9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90311 |
On 13/07/2016 08:43, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 13/07/16 08:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> The basic point is right. > > He doesn't have a basic point. He has a reluctance to learn C and a > determination to find things to complain about that nobody else cares > about even remotely, Some do to the extent of adding extra spacing to avoid confusion. but what he does not have is a point, basic or > otherwise. And the funny thing, the weird thing, is that this basic > point, this point that he doesn't have, is completely wrong. > Others seem to agree with me: "I heard people arguing on the Internet that you should not add parentheses when sizeof is applied to an expression, only a type. I just cannot understand why they bother. Just add a parenthesis and it is always right. Much less cognitive burden." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9629461 -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 12:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87poqh9575.fsf@news.bourguet.org> |
| In reply to | #90315 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > Others seem to agree with me: > > "I heard people arguing on the Internet that you should not add parentheses > when sizeof is applied to an expression, only a type. I just cannot > understand why they bother. Just add a parenthesis and it is always > right. Much less cognitive burden." I don't care if you systematically put parenthesis around sizeof argument or not. But the fact is that there are people who find them unnecessary and who don't put them. So if you have to understand any code written by others (including maybe your past yourself as on things of this importance -- use 0 or NULL for null pointer is another example of those things -- switching opinion and style happens), you have to be confortable with the other practice excepted if you work and in a place where that aspect is part of the coding style (**I** would not put it) and the coding style is strongly enforced enough. That's especially true if you want those unnecessary parenthesis as, if I'm allowed to extrapolate from my, per definition limited, experience, those in favor of strong coding style enforcement favor their absense. Yours, -- Jean-Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 12:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm591l$v4g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90315 |
On 13/07/16 11:21, BartC wrote: > On 13/07/2016 08:43, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 13/07/16 08:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >>> The basic point is right. >> >> He doesn't have a basic point. He has a reluctance to learn C and a >> determination to find things to complain about that nobody else cares >> about even remotely, > > Some do to the extent of adding extra spacing to avoid confusion. > > but what he does not have is a point, basic or >> otherwise. And the funny thing, the weird thing, is that this basic >> point, this point that he doesn't have, is completely wrong. >> > > Others seem to agree with me: So? That doesn't make you right. It just makes them wrong. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 10:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nm5jh7$3gr$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #90319 |
On 7/13/2016 7:35 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 13/07/16 11:21, BartC wrote: >> On 13/07/2016 08:43, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 13/07/16 08:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>>> The basic point is right. >>> >>> He doesn't have a basic point. He has a reluctance to learn C and a >>> determination to find things to complain about that nobody else cares >>> about even remotely, >> >> Some do to the extent of adding extra spacing to avoid confusion. >> >> but what he does not have is a point, basic or >>> otherwise. And the funny thing, the weird thing, is that this basic >>> point, this point that he doesn't have, is completely wrong. >>> >> >> Others seem to agree with me: > > So? That doesn't make you right. It just makes them wrong. > No, it means they have a different style. Parens around the operand of sizeof are required in some cases. But in others, it is optional. In the latter, whether you use them or not is neither right nor wrong. It is a matter of style. I happen to prefer using parens all of the time, as have many of the projects I've worked on. Some don't. Both ways are just fine. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 05:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dus4uiFb02gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90311 |
On 07/13/2016 12:43 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 13/07/16 08:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 12:28:19 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>>>>> array = malloc(soezif*sioezf*siozef); >>>>>>>> array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef); >>>>>>>> array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef); >>>>>>>> array = malloc(sozief*soizef*sozeif); >>>>>>>> array = malloc(sieozf*sizoef*sizoef); >>>>>>>> array = malloc(szeoif*seizof*sozeif); ... > He doesn't have a basic point. He has a reluctance to learn C and a > determination to find things to complain about that nobody else cares > about even remotely, but what he does not have is a point, basic or > otherwise. And the funny thing, the weird thing, is that this basic > point, this point that he doesn't have, is completely wrong. > Amusing, C_Dreamer, as ever. Does #Brexit make the pond bigger or smaller between us? If we both end up with fascist regimes headed by blondes who look like they want to kiss, if not have sex with their own cults of personality, then who knows how anglo-american cooperation will proceed: we might just get flat-out drafted. I'm not sure if the Chilcot people came knocking on your door in any sense, but if I heard truth spoken to power in the context of Blair dismantling the Law, it was from you. If you need a specific american to blame the iraq war on, you can use my uncle hermann, because he was the munster. Just when I think we need you because you're our senior statesmen, this.... -- Cal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 11:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm54ga$gnd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90310 |
On 13/07/2016 08:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 12:28:19 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> I agree. I completely disagree with BartC on the technical point being >> discussed, but Richard Bos, you were out of line. >> > Bart makes the point too strongly. > By creating a mass of identifiers similar to sizeof and burying a > sizeof operator in them you can hide the operator. But no one would > do that in real code. It's exaggerating to make the point that /you/ brought up: >> int *array = malloc(10 * sizeof *array); >Gibberish. >malloc ten times sizeof times array? Ten times the size of the array? The sizeof*array bit has exactly the same syntactic shape as any identifier*array. The extra space they've put in doesn't help as you learn to ignore odd spacing in C especially inside expressions. (And the fact that some people think an extra space might be necessary suggests that there /could/ be a problem.) Perhaps I should have used a simpler example: size * sizeof * array * depth The brain can't help seeing patterns and the dominant one here is of four things multiplied together (before the deeper understanding kicks in when it recognises that sizeof is special). All I'm saying is that it was a lousy design choice in C to have a dereference operator "*" that can't always be cleanly distinguished (ie. at first glance) from the identical "*" multiply operator. sizeof*p being one example, another is a**b (and yet another is t*u when t is a type and "*" is now a pointer-to indicator.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 04:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46e30358-a1cb-4aff-98c7-fb83ba99b64a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90314 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:17:56 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > Perhaps I should have used a simpler example: > > size * sizeof * array * depth > > The brain can't help seeing patterns and the dominant one here is of > four things multiplied together (before the deeper understanding kicks > in when it recognises that sizeof is special). > Exactly. That's a non-contrived example which could easily appear in real code. > > All I'm saying is that it was a lousy design choice in C to have a > dereference operator "*" that can't always be cleanly distinguished (ie. > at first glance) from the identical "*" multiply operator. sizeof*p > being one example, another is a**b (and yet another is t*u when t is a > type and "*" is now a pointer-to indicator.) > It is a nuisance and a bit confusing that * is both "multiply" and "dereference", but there are only a limited number of symbols. If fact in well-written C, you seldom need * to dereference, only to declare a pointer. You should use array syntax. The days when you could squeeze a bit of micro-efficiency out of the compiler by using travelling pointers are long gone. If a pointer points to a single object, you use -> notation to dereference if it is a structure. So the only case you need to use * is where you've got a pointer to a single basic type. The usual reason for that is that the function needs to return more than one value. So the last line of the function is *Nret = Ngenerated; That's not confusing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 12:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm58ur$v4g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90314 |
On 13/07/16 11:17, BartC wrote: <snip> > > The sizeof*array bit has exactly the same syntactic shape as any > identifier*array. The extra space they've put in doesn't help as you > learn to ignore odd spacing in C especially inside expressions. > > (And the fact that some people think an extra space might be necessary > suggests that there /could/ be a problem.) And the fact that some people think it isn't suggests that there might not. > > Perhaps I should have used a simpler example: > > size * sizeof * array * depth > > The brain can't help seeing patterns and the dominant one here is of > four things multiplied together (before the deeper understanding kicks > in when it recognises that sizeof is special). Actually, the first thing that hits me visually is sizeof, precisely because it's a keyword. > All I'm saying is that it was a lousy design choice in C That seems to be all you ever say. But, although C will undoubtedly change, it isn't going to change in the ways you want because the lousy design choices you think you've identified make perfect sense to a lot of C programmers. So you have three choices: stop using C, keep using it but shut up moaning, or keep moaning and get up everyone's nose. You seem to be very fond of Option 3. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 13:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm5ctu$db7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90318 |
On 13/07/2016 12:33, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 13/07/16 11:17, BartC wrote: >> All I'm saying is that it was a lousy design choice in C > > That seems to be all you ever say. But, although C will undoubtedly > change, it isn't going to change in the ways you want because the lousy > design choices you think you've identified make perfect sense to a lot > of C programmers. Until you come across a different language and all those 'sensible' choices seem to have been abandoned! So you have three choices: stop using C, keep using it > but shut up moaning, or keep moaning and get up everyone's nose. You > seem to be very fond of Option 3. One wonders how newer languages ever get off the ground when everyone simply accepts the limitations of an existing language and brushes any problems under the carpet. 'It's not a bug, it's a feature!' I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. The subthread I think started with Malcolm picking up on 'sizeof *array' and I expanded on that as a change from talking about evolution. It's not a big deal; it's just a diversion. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 13:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm5ds4$gh4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90324 |
On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: > On 13/07/2016 12:33, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 13/07/16 11:17, BartC wrote: > >>> All I'm saying is that it was a lousy design choice in C >> >> That seems to be all you ever say. But, although C will undoubtedly >> change, it isn't going to change in the ways you want because the lousy >> design choices you think you've identified make perfect sense to a lot >> of C programmers. > > Until you come across a different language and all those 'sensible' > choices seem to have been abandoned! In a different language, different choices might well make sense. That's /why/ it's a different language. If each language made the same choices as every other language, there'd only be one language! > So you have three choices: stop using C, keep using it >> but shut up moaning, or keep moaning and get up everyone's nose. You >> seem to be very fond of Option 3. > > One wonders how newer languages ever get off the ground when everyone > simply accepts the limitations of an existing language and brushes any > problems under the carpet. 'It's not a bug, it's a feature!' Newer languages get off the ground when someone who is scratching an itch discovers that other people are itching in the same way. > I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for > 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that > doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. You are, of course, free to design your own language, in which you can make different choices. Or you can choose some other language in which those different choices have already been made for you. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 06:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c6e8adb-d434-474b-a974-40d0d1cc8e63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90325 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:57:50 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: > > > I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for > > 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that > > doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. > > In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. You are, of > course, free to design your own language, in which you can make > different choices. Or you can choose some other language in which those > different choices have already been made for you. > I first saw C code a long time ago. I already know how to program in assembly, so of course pointers, which are the biggest single source of difficulty to people learning C as a first programming language, were no issue to me. All I needed to know was that a pointer was the C name for a variable containing an address. But * as the indirection operator was a bit weird. Largely because it is so strongly associated with multiply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 20:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r3axs6ea.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #90326 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: <snip> > I first saw C code a long time ago. > I already know how to program in assembly, so of course pointers, which are > the biggest single source of difficulty to people learning C as a > first programming > language, were no issue to me. All I needed to know was that a pointer was > the C name for a variable containing an address. You also need to know that a pointer has a target type associated with it or pointer arithmetic would not work and * would not know what to fetch. C's pointers are not exactly like machine addresses. (You also probably knew that pointers are just values that don't have to be stored in variables.) <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 15:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm5i78$ep$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90325 |
On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote:
>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for
>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that
>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong.
>
> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong.
A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, but dereference B once and
multiply by A.
A**B, in a different context, means neither of the above, but declare
name B as a pointer to pointer to A.
A*B means multiply A by B.
A*B in a different context, means declare B as a pointer to A.
If A*B is in a multiply context, then (A)*B, A*(B), (A*B) and (A)*(B)
all mean the same. But A(*B) means call function A with a dereferenced B
as argument.
While, if A*B was a declaration, then A(*B) and A*(B) are still
declarations, but (A)*B is an expression casting a dereferenced B to A,
and (A*)B casts B to a pointer to A.
If A / * B means divide A by a dereferenced B, then A /* B doesn't.
If a line is split into two, and only the second half is visible at the
top of your screen:
*B);
Then you can't tell if this is a multiply, a dereference, or a
declaration without scrolling back one line.
I won't bother with the examples where A* B,C declares one pointer and
one non-pointer.
But as you say, I'm completely wrong, and none of these examples is
problematical or quirky at all; the language design is fine. Programs
obviously can be written and compiled, without any subtle errors of
meaning creeping in!
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 18:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm5st9$9f4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90328 |
On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote: > On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: > >>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for >>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that >>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. >> >> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. > > A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, Why on earth would it? The mathematical notation for raising to a power is A^B - and ** is just a kludge because it turns out that there's no way to write small-font superscripts on a Model 33. Every language has compromises. We know what C's are. They're a little quirky, but they don't cause any problems to anyone who knows the language. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 19:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87bn21a1zi.fsf@news.bourguet.org> |
| In reply to | #90335 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > Every language has compromises. We know what C's are. They're a little > quirky, but they don't cause any problems to anyone who knows the language. The quirks of C hit everybody who is trying to process C programmatically. But more than the use of a prefix * for dereferencing (wich is no more difficult to parse than the unary and binary use of -), it is the fact that typedef names affect the selection of grammar rules which is painfull in my experience (and quite a few of Bart complains are more related to that than to the dual meaning of *). Yours, -- Jean-Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web