Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #104113 > unrolled thread
| Started by | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-18 00:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2017-02-25 13:13 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 539 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 00:43 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-18 02:41 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2017-02-20 18:00 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 18:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-18 11:47 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:08 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 23:30 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-18 15:50 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 00:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:01 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-18 19:20 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 09:41 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-19 09:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 10:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 07:21 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 17:28 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-19 11:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 18:12 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-19 13:10 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 20:24 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 11:51 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 12:26 -0800
Getting yourself killfiled (Was: Is this valid C?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-02-19 21:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 11:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 07:33 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 15:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 19:42 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 12:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 20:51 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 14:48 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 00:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 09:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-20 09:14 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-20 12:17 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 23:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 00:24 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-20 00:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 01:25 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 11:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-20 14:44 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-20 15:51 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 16:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-23 12:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-19 15:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 00:55 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 10:05 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 07:08 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 16:23 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 16:03 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 08:45 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 09:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 12:25 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 12:29 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 13:20 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 13:50 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 14:08 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 15:16 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 16:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 09:28 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-21 09:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 19:21 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-21 19:21 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 21:34 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-21 21:31 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 10:09 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 10:43 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 12:43 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-22 15:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-22 09:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 16:28 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 17:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 09:22 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 19:20 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 11:34 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-22 11:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-22 20:11 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 21:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 23:13 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 23:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 10:35 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 01:10 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 00:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 16:42 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 11:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 10:49 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 12:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 17:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 18:48 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-23 01:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 11:37 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-23 15:11 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-23 07:36 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 16:49 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-23 09:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 16:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 16:51 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-23 17:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 22:57 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 15:31 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-22 15:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-22 18:35 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 00:46 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-22 22:39 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 10:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 17:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 11:17 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-02-23 19:03 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 20:11 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-23 20:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 21:20 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 18:28 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 18:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 19:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-24 12:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 20:38 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:11 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:15 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-24 15:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 12:10 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-25 13:25 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 21:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 22:00 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-28 20:17 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 01:22 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 17:40 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 11:06 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-25 12:43 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 21:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:39 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 21:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:07 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-02-25 19:19 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 17:12 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-26 00:13 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 00:56 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 01:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 03:18 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 14:03 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 14:28 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 16:20 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 07:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 17:03 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 16:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 09:50 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 18:48 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-24 17:25 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 16:40 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 16:50 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-25 19:52 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-26 09:17 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 17:44 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 18:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 18:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 19:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-25 19:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 10:01 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 14:28 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 18:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-02-25 15:37 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-21 10:56 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-27 05:18 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-27 08:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-27 11:26 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-27 13:57 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-27 14:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-28 04:25 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-28 15:45 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-01 03:46 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 06:30 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 16:31 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 08:37 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 19:02 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 10:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 21:00 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 14:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-01 12:28 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 12:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-07 14:53 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-01 09:10 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 09:51 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2017-03-02 19:44 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-02 12:05 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-02 04:19 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 06:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-02 10:16 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 15:32 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-03 04:20 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 05:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 08:22 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-02 19:34 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 08:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-02 10:54 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 16:35 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 18:30 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 07:52 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-20 13:53 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-20 12:58 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-20 17:28 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 16:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 09:14 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 05:10 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 07:43 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-26 07:07 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 09:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 08:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 09:11 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 09:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 09:55 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 10:27 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-23 20:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 12:54 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-26 10:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-26 13:13 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-17 11:56 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-17 12:32 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 14:36 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 08:30 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 09:34 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 15:54 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 13:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 14:53 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-25 18:33 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-19 09:06 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 10:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 09:06 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 16:25 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 11:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-19 17:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 11:57 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 21:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-25 05:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 13:39 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-25 17:42 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-23 16:41 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 10:04 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 08:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 14:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 12:57 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 20:04 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 12:37 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 16:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 15:21 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-24 16:09 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 17:45 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-25 14:44 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 14:15 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 21:48 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 09:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 14:24 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 15:59 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 18:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 21:50 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 19:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 23:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-02-25 21:26 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 10:09 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-26 17:41 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2017-02-26 12:56 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 00:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-26 19:02 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 13:49 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-26 19:55 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 12:05 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 00:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 22:01 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 08:51 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-27 13:59 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 15:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-27 10:01 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 18:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:47 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 16:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 15:14 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:05 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:26 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 23:20 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 18:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:05 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:48 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:27 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:55 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 05:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:27 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 10:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:16 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-02 15:54 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 11:26 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 10:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 12:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 11:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 13:48 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-03 12:41 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 12:47 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-03 12:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 13:12 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 13:57 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 05:23 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 15:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 07:13 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-03 12:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-03 19:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-03 21:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-03 21:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 19:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:21 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:22 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-28 21:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:24 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 09:01 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:30 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 18:05 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:27 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 19:01 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:26 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:13 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:28 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 20:12 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:38 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-28 20:46 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:29 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:15 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:30 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-28 23:08 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:34 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-28 13:40 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-28 19:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:39 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:17 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:36 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-27 17:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-27 17:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-27 19:20 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 10:15 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 14:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 15:50 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 00:50 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 20:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2017-02-27 16:59 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 19:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-27 12:12 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 11:36 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-23 16:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 12:22 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 15:39 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 13:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-24 18:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:14 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:13 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 18:33 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 21:58 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 19:38 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 23:21 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-25 06:57 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 16:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 12:12 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:19 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 08:42 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 08:58 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-23 16:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 11:43 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 15:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 13:40 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 18:54 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 23:17 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-25 19:15 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 23:10 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 12:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 15:57 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-26 21:54 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 19:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 01:29 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:52 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 16:04 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 11:16 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 20:42 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 01:34 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-27 17:55 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 10:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:28 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 10:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:31 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 20:17 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 19:26 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 23:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:37 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 09:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-27 09:14 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 11:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 16:24 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:58 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 16:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 15:19 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 20:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:21 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 23:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 18:49 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 16:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:52 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 17:10 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:31 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 06:44 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:37 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:37 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:21 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:29 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 15:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 18:58 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 16:18 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:03 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 17:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:40 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:46 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:01 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-27 19:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:05 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 17:51 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 00:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 09:23 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:32 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 07:36 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:21 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:39 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 16:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 09:12 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 19:07 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 08:34 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 09:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 20:52 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:26 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:40 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 16:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 10:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 20:25 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:28 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2017-03-01 03:17 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 10:28 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 11:35 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:46 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 03:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 23:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 18:05 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 00:02 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:32 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 01:29 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 00:09 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 05:22 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:36 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:35 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 18:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:46 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:48 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 10:46 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-01 02:08 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:52 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 16:58 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 09:32 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-01 21:50 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 09:18 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 19:47 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-26 19:24 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 11:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 10:15 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 15:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 13:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:40 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 15:37 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-27 18:54 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:02 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:44 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 04:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:57 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 11:27 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:06 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 06:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:09 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:36 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:10 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 07:28 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:49 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:30 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 01:38 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:54 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-02 07:35 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 16:50 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-24 16:59 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-19 11:03 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 12:10 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 10:34 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 22:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-24 11:49 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 15:25 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 15:09 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 14:29 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-25 07:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 15:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-25 13:13 -0800
Page 7 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 27 Next page →
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 10:15 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ehbm3oF5ugU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #104643 |
On 02/25/17 10:11 AM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 02/25/17 09:38 AM, BartC wrote: >> On 24/02/2017 19:53, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >>> To say the truth, your chances to get contributions/help are >>> small. But somewhat you seem to prefer practice that >>> discourages potential contributors. Granted, the first >>> contribution you are likely to get is a Makefile and >>> configure script. But nobody says you need accept >>> changes that you do not want. And if you manage to >>> explain why you solution is better than Makefile (assuming >>> it is) the same person may do contribution that you >>> will find useful. >> >> Makefiles are a backwards ways of doing things and entirely unsuited to >> the way I work. > > So don't use them for your work, but accept that others do and you'll > have to live with them if you want to use their work. > > Your biggest problem is the lack of package management on Windows. This > is why so many tools have to bundle in their dependencies: they can't > check, or get the OS to check, whether they are already installed. I've > always considered this wanton stupidity on Microsoft's part given > package management on Unix predates windows! > > Even with those limitations, there are cross-platform build tools out > there. My current project uses Premake and Ninja. The premake script > generates build files for Linux and Windows, so a developer can choose > of which development platform they use. I should add that we also build our third party components the same way (as part of a single build), so we don't have to suffer their makefiles! -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 15:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ff1becc-7b35-4ee6-b1ed-8a333a5ad279@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104643 |
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 3:12:08 PM UTC-6, Ian Collins wrote: > On 02/25/17 09:38 AM, BartC wrote: > > Makefiles are a backwards ways of doing things and entirely unsuited to > > the way I work. > > So don't use them for your work, but accept that others do and you'll > have to live with them if you want to use their work. There's a huge difference between saying that projects shouldn't come with makefiles, and between saying that projects should not only come with a makefile but also be designed so that someone using different tools can set up a build process that works--though not necessarily exceptionally quickly--without excessive difficulty [e.g. give a list of all the C files that should be needed for a typical build along with a description of any macros that need to be predefined, as well as any special requirements that the code may have (e.g. only working with compilers that are configured to support low-level C programming). > Your biggest problem is the lack of package management on Windows. This > is why so many tools have to bundle in their dependencies: they can't > check, or get the OS to check, whether they are already installed. I've > always considered this wanton stupidity on Microsoft's part given > package management on Unix predates windows! In many cases, bundling dependencies is a better approach than relying upon them to be pre-installed. If one program is written on the assumption that a call to realloc(somePtr,0) will be equivalent to (free(somePtr),(void*)0) and is bundled with an implementation of that behaves that way, and another expects realloc(somePtr,0) will be equivalent to realloc(somePtr,1) and its bundled library behaves that way, the differing expectations will not cause any trouble. If, however, each programs expect to use a realloc() function that is built into the underlying system, however, trying to get both programs to coexist may be much more "interesting".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 12:10 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ehbsr4F5ugU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #104656 |
On 02/25/17 12:02 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 3:12:08 PM UTC-6, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 02/25/17 09:38 AM, BartC wrote: >>> Makefiles are a backwards ways of doing things and entirely unsuited to >>> the way I work. >> >> So don't use them for your work, but accept that others do and you'll >> have to live with them if you want to use their work. > > There's a huge difference between saying that projects shouldn't come with > makefiles, and between saying that projects should not only come with > a makefile but also be designed so that someone using different tools can > set up a build process that works--though not necessarily exceptionally > quickly--without excessive difficulty [e.g. give a list of all the C files > that should be needed for a typical build along with a description of any > macros that need to be predefined, as well as any special requirements that > the code may have (e.g. only working with compilers that are configured to > support low-level C programming). I think you would probably asphyxiate if you tried to read that single sentence out loud... >> Your biggest problem is the lack of package management on Windows. This >> is why so many tools have to bundle in their dependencies: they can't >> check, or get the OS to check, whether they are already installed. I've >> always considered this wanton stupidity on Microsoft's part given >> package management on Unix predates windows! > > In many cases, bundling dependencies is a better approach than relying upon > them to be pre-installed. Only in the absence of proper package management. One job of a package manager is to manage dependency versions. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 10:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8760jy4l1g.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #104656 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 3:12:08 PM UTC-6, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 02/25/17 09:38 AM, BartC wrote: >> > Makefiles are a backwards ways of doing things and entirely unsuited to >> > the way I work. >> >> So don't use them for your work, but accept that others do and you'll >> have to live with them if you want to use their work. > > There's a huge difference between saying that projects shouldn't come with > makefiles, and between saying that projects should not only come with > a makefile but also be designed so that someone using different tools can > set up a build process that works I agree. I'd go further -- someone should volunteer to do every piece of work that I personally don't want to do. Furthermore, they should all alter their workflows to make my life easier, as opposed to their own. Also, they should absolutely continue to give me their work for free.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 13:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e119f712-e414-4062-a5d4-f78d16d87fd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104691 |
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 4:33:39 AM UTC-6, gwowen wrote: > supercat writes: > I'd go further -- someone should volunteer to do every piece of work > that I personally don't want to do. Furthermore, they should all alter > their workflows to make my life easier, as opposed to their own. > > Also, they should absolutely continue to give me their work for free. People who release open-source projects generally do so with the intention that other people will find their work useful. A program that can be used easily with a wide range of development systems will often be useful to more people than would a program that can only be used with one. Thus, people who are trying to make their work useful to a wide audience should avoid needlessly limiting it to a particular development system. That's not to say that developers should bend over backward to support every imaginable system under the sun, but if doing something easy will make a program usable for a wider audience, it should likely be done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8q8fe$7ba$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #104637 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 24/02/2017 19:53, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > To say the truth, your chances to get contributions/help are
> > small. But somewhat you seem to prefer practice that
> > discourages potential contributors. Granted, the first
> > contribution you are likely to get is a Makefile and
> > configure script. But nobody says you need accept
> > changes that you do not want. And if you manage to
> > explain why you solution is better than Makefile (assuming
> > it is) the same person may do contribution that you
> > will find useful.
>
> Makefiles are a backwards ways of doing things and entirely unsuited to
> the way I work.
>
> From the start, I've always developed code from within resident IDE
> programs, never from an OS command line. Those programs knew what I was
> doing, what the constituent modules were, and how to run them.
Indeed, if your language has decent notion of module and
IDE/compiler supports it, then you can do well without make.
> And with a much more recent project (which was interrupted to dash off
> this C compiler), which uses a statically compiled language, the idea is
> to edit source for a module, then instantly re-compile everything from
> within the same IDE to in-memory native code that is then instantly
> executed. Again, no cumbersome external compilers or linkers involved.
Well, "instantly re-compile everything" does not sound so well.
It could probably work with my projects but some programs are
large and can not easily be made smaller. The "re-compile everything"
may hit barrer due to compile time or memory use (usual trick
to get faster compilation keep a lot of things in RAM).
> At the sorts of throughputs I'm aiming at, and with the sizes of
> projects I work with (up to 50Kloc), I'm looking at building a project
> from scratch, recompiling all modules, in tens of milliseconds. Well,
> pretty much within the time it takes to press and release Enter, taking
> account of all overheads.
My current project is about 400 Kloc (wc count). And language
semantics of largest part (about 200 Kloc, other parts are in
other languages) requires substantial processing. Given that program
is neatly divided into modules I do not see reasons why I
should recompile everything when recompiling single module
usually is enough.
Now, compile speed you give is impressive. I wonder if this
includes features that are expected from modern compilers like
precise information about location of errors, support for
debuggers etc.
>
> OK. Now tell me what a makefile system could do for me.
>
> Especially (1) my building someone else's application that has a build
> system so complicated, the makefile doesn't even exist except as a phase
> of the whole process.
>
> And (2), how I can take my applications, currently made available as as
> one C source file just requiring one compile, and turn them into into
> dozens of assorted files in assorted languages, in assorted directories
> and with assorted configuration steps, and having to stipulate one or
> two C compilers instead of any.
>
> Forgive, but I see that as a backward step.
You somewhat missed the point. I am not saying that you should
use Makefile given that you have adequate solutions. The point
is about releasing true sources: just put sources that _you_ use
organized as _you_ have them organized in a subdirectory of
directory where you put the C file. That way the generated C
can be used for easy build, but recipents of your software
will have extra options.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <D12sA.533530$Vn7.480623@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #104647 |
On 24/02/2017 21:27, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> At the sorts of throughputs I'm aiming at, and with the sizes of >> projects I work with (up to 50Kloc), I'm looking at building a project >> from scratch, recompiling all modules, in tens of milliseconds. Well, >> pretty much within the time it takes to press and release Enter, taking >> account of all overheads. > > My current project is about 400 Kloc (wc count). And language > semantics of largest part (about 200 Kloc, other parts are in > other languages) requires substantial processing. Given that program > is neatly divided into modules I do not see reasons why I > should recompile everything when recompiling single module > usually is enough. If the app gets big enough that compiling everything from scratch gives an annoying delay, then there are the usual schemes that can be applied to selectively compile only what is necessary. Or, if the whole thing [compiler] is part of a resident IDE, to keep part-processed versions of the modules in RAM, ready for a quick re-build (same techniques from 35 years ago, and for the same reasons!). Alternatively, parts could be offloaded to independent, stable libraries (.dll or .so) which need not be re-built from sources so often. (My last commercial app was about 150Kloc, but that was towards the end of the nineties with less powerful hardware. 75Kloc was compiled code statically forming the core application, and 75Kloc was multiple script modules. Those could be independently compiled (into bytecode) and run immediately. And from inside a running app as I said. Because most of the fiddly work was in the scripts, it meant that recompiling the static part was only done infrequently (not that it took that long). So mostly, the edit-run cycle was zero. But whatever the project, I would usually spend time working out a way to get a fast modify-run cycle, if the speed was going to be a problem.) > > Now, compile speed you give is impressive. I wonder if this > includes features that are expected from modern compilers like > precise information about location of errors, support for > debuggers etc. (Well, I haven't finished yet. I was aiming at 500Klps for my own language, on my PC, and expected compiling C to be slower. However, C lends itself better to combining passes, so it could even be faster to compile, provided the source code isn't completely crazy with macros. But then again, C has a problem with large headers that need to be repeatedly processed. So I'll have to see what is possible.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o94lpk$vf3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104652 |
On 24/02/2017 22:00, BartC wrote: > On 24/02/2017 21:27, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> At the sorts of throughputs I'm aiming at, and with the sizes of >>> projects I work with (up to 50Kloc), I'm looking at building a project >>> from scratch, recompiling all modules, in tens of milliseconds. Well, >>> pretty much within the time it takes to press and release Enter, taking >>> account of all overheads. >> Now, compile speed you give is impressive. I wonder if this >> includes features that are expected from modern compilers like >> precise information about location of errors, support for >> debuggers etc. No, it will be the same crappy standard of compiler which I always end up writing. (But with which I have used to produce commercial software for which I used to earn a living; they are not toys.) Errors, if you're lucky, will be to the nearest line. There is no support for traditional debugging (but there will no traditional executable or object file anyway). But with the speed, and the ability to tweak it because it is a small, informal project, mean interesting things become possible. > (Well, I haven't finished yet. I was aiming at 500Klps for my own > language, on my PC, and expected compiling C to be slower. However, C > lends itself better to combining passes, so it could even be faster to > compile, provided the source code isn't completely crazy with macros. > But then again, C has a problem with large headers that need to be > repeatedly processed. So I'll have to see what is possible.) Early tests suggest that parsing and type-checking of C code can be done at 1.5 to 2 million lines per second (AMD64 2.7GHz and Intel 3.2GHz). Based on one file of 12K lines (not mine), and files of 14K and 32K lines (mine, generated C code). Other styles of C source may be more demanding. Lps figures are for in-memory source to in-memory ST, AST and other tables. (There is no code generator yet; on other projects, that accounted for 30% of runtime, but this is one is a little different). (Some overheads are not included because, while tiny, at these speeds the slightest thing, even printing a few messages, will effect the timings; I'm measuring conversion of source code to, eventually, runnable native code, not how adept the OS is at getting it in or out of memory. For this test, all system headers are preloaded, but they will be anyway in the final version.) This processes itself (when converted into the one-file C version, the 14Kloc file), in about 7ms on the faster machine. Throughput might drop as bugs are sorted out, short-cuts are taken care of, missing bits are added and everything; but then it could still be optimised a bit! Of course the code generator pass needs to be done too (to in-memory code). A bit of a challenge will be not squandering all that throughput on processing hundreds of thousands of lines of the same header files. (What grates though is that these speeds were with gcc -O3. Other compilers, including my own non-C compiler, were slower, but mostly still over 1Mlps on these test files. Even Tiny C managed 500-600Klps.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 01:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8qm58$a9c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104616 |
On 24/02/2017 18:28, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: [Distributing/sharing code via github] >> It can work because /I make the effort/. > > If you make effort to provide extra distribution format, then > this is nice. But when you withdraw real source, that is > not nice. In fact, it looks like violation of github terms > of use (which require sources). Do you have a link or reference for that? Is there a restriction on binary content too? (That could be part of an app, for example small images, sound clips, fonts, scalable vector graphics, all sorts of data files, essential .dll/.so files, etc etc.) I would find it extremely odd if normal C source code is prohibited because it might have been generated by software. So if a C file contains a data table that tooks days of super-computer time to generate, that would be prohibited? Or does it require that the generating program (100,000 lines of Fortran or whatever) be provided too? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 17:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <76cdc354-0e2e-4458-b7e9-b046192f88b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104673 |
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 1:22:44 AM UTC, Bart wrote: > > Is there a restriction on binary content too? (That could be part of an > app, for example small images, sound clips, fonts, scalable vector > graphics, all sorts of data files, essential .dll/.so files, etc etc.) > > I would find it extremely odd if normal C source code is prohibited > because it might have been generated by software. So if a C file > contains a data table that tooks days of super-computer time to > generate, that would be prohibited? Or does it require that the > generating program (100,000 lines of Fortran or whatever) be provided too? > Generally receiver should be able to go through the same sort of creative process as the author. So clearly running code through cshroud (a program designed to make C code unreadable whilst retaining its function) would be unacceptable. Clearly a hand-written C source file is acceptable. But you get grey areas. For example all the icons in a program may have been rendered with a raytracer that gives them a distinctive "style". No-one can add an icon of the right style unless they have access to the raytracer, but it might be closed source and running on a supercomputer somewhere in a graphics company like Pixar. That wouldn't make the project closed source, but the ideal has been badly damaged.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 11:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8roc5$3n6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104676 |
On 25/02/2017 01:40, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 1:22:44 AM UTC, Bart wrote: >> >> Is there a restriction on binary content too? (That could be part of an >> app, for example small images, sound clips, fonts, scalable vector >> graphics, all sorts of data files, essential .dll/.so files, etc etc.) >> >> I would find it extremely odd if normal C source code is prohibited >> because it might have been generated by software. So if a C file >> contains a data table that tooks days of super-computer time to >> generate, that would be prohibited? Or does it require that the >> generating program (100,000 lines of Fortran or whatever) be provided too? >> > Generally receiver should be able to go through the same sort of creative > process as the author. So clearly running code through cshroud (a program > designed to make C code unreadable whilst retaining its function) would > be unacceptable. Clearly a hand-written C source file is acceptable. > > But you get grey areas. For example all the icons in a program may > have been rendered with a raytracer that gives them a distinctive > "style". No-one can add an icon of the right style unless they have > access to the raytracer, but it might be closed source and running > on a supercomputer somewhere in a graphics company like Pixar. > > That wouldn't make the project closed source, but the ideal has been > badly damaged. Posted C source may already be intermediate code, not the original source, if the original was a pseudo-code algorithm or a flow-chart written on the back of an envelope. Maybe people should post pictures of the envelope! Or maybe a particularly devious type-declaration was created with the help of Cdecl. Anyway the quality of my generated C code is such, that if I'd lost all my original non-C sources, I'd be able to recover most of the project from that C code. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 12:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnmvdagfwx.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #104693 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Posted C source may already be intermediate code, not the original
> source, if the original was a pseudo-code algorithm or a flow-chart
> written on the back of an envelope.
>
> Maybe people should post pictures of the envelope!
[...]
The GPL (whatever you may think of it in general) has, IMHO, a
reasonable definition of "source code":
The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source
form of a work.
If you use tools to generate C source and then perform further
maintenance directly on the C source, then that's the "source code".
If any changes require modifying some input file and re-running
the tool, then the C source is not "source code".
--
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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 21:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QJmsA.320604$FC4.68116@fx19.am4> |
| In reply to | #104715 |
On 25/02/2017 20:43, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> Posted C source may already be intermediate code, not the original
>> source, if the original was a pseudo-code algorithm or a flow-chart
>> written on the back of an envelope.
>>
>> Maybe people should post pictures of the envelope!
> [...]
>
> The GPL (whatever you may think of it in general) has, IMHO, a
> reasonable definition of "source code":
>
> The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work
> for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source
> form of a work.
>
> If you use tools to generate C source and then perform further
> maintenance directly on the C source, then that's the "source code".
> If any changes require modifying some input file and re-running
> the tool, then the C source is not "source code".
Then a lot of open source code I've seen isn't source code.
Comments are often missing to such an extent that I assume it's been
processed to strip them out. Or to format the code to a certain style.
Or, if it's in some sort of repository that is periodically updated,
such as a .bz2 file, then presumably that is a snapshot of the source at
a particular point in time; the active source will be different.
(But how does github work; do people actually use it to develop 'live'
code with the sources actually kept on-line? It sounds hopelessly
impractical to do any real, rapid development, and the editor used would
drive me round the bend. And where are tools kept, and where are the
programs run.)
If there really is a legal problem with putting C source code on github,
because it might not be the 'real' source, then I suppose I could put it
elsewhere, with some effort (ie digging out my ftp program and looking
up the server name), eg:
http://www.bcas.freeuk.com/pcc.c
Presumably I can still have documentation on github, complete with links
such as the above, to the 'source' code stored off-site. Which would be
an extraordinary stage of affairs, if I can't put C source code on
github, but I can everything else!
Would it be allowed to put actual, original non-C source on github, even
if people can't compile it (except by using manual instructions)? Would
that make the intermediate C code OK?
If not, then I'd run into a catch-22 situation, as the tools to compile
the non-C are written in the same non-C languages, and could only be
bootstrapped by compiling intermediate C.
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 10:39 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ehebsiF5ugU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #104720 |
On 02/26/17 10:32 AM, BartC wrote: > > (But how does github work; do people actually use it to develop 'live' > code with the sources actually kept on-line? It sounds hopelessly > impractical to do any real, rapid development, and the editor used would > drive me round the bend. And where are tools kept, and where are the > programs run.) Are you for real? Most large opensource projects are on GitHub these days. Do you know what a distributed version control system is? -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 21:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8su9a$7gd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104721 |
On 25/02/2017 21:39, Ian Collins wrote: > On 02/26/17 10:32 AM, BartC wrote: >> >> (But how does github work; do people actually use it to develop 'live' >> code with the sources actually kept on-line? It sounds hopelessly >> impractical to do any real, rapid development, and the editor used would >> drive me round the bend. And where are tools kept, and where are the >> programs run.) > > Are you for real? > > Most large opensource projects are on GitHub these days. Do you know > what a distributed version control system is? No, I've no idea. I only use it because it's easier to share files than using something like Dropbox or my own website. But since I have 100s of GB of local storage and several GB of RAM on my own PC, why would I want to develop stuff online? So, where would the tools be kept, where would they be run, and where does the executable run? (If a typical github project isn't so big and haughty that concept of a single executable file is meaningless.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 11:07 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ehedh2F5ugU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #104723 |
On 02/26/17 10:53 AM, BartC wrote: > On 25/02/2017 21:39, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 02/26/17 10:32 AM, BartC wrote: >>> >>> (But how does github work; do people actually use it to develop 'live' >>> code with the sources actually kept on-line? It sounds hopelessly >>> impractical to do any real, rapid development, and the editor used would >>> drive me round the bend. And where are tools kept, and where are the >>> programs run.) >> >> Are you for real? >> >> Most large opensource projects are on GitHub these days. Do you know >> what a distributed version control system is? > > No, I've no idea. I only use it because it's easier to share files than > using something like Dropbox or my own website. Do you live in a bubble? > But since I have 100s of GB of local storage and several GB of RAM on my > own PC, why would I want to develop stuff online? Why indeed, I don't know anyone who does. Storing source code in a DVCS do others can collaborate is a different story. > So, where would the tools be kept, where would they be run, and where > does the executable run? Locally. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 19:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bpoi5elt4.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #104723 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 25/02/2017 21:39, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 02/26/17 10:32 AM, BartC wrote: >>> >>> (But how does github work; do people actually use it to develop 'live' >>> code with the sources actually kept on-line? It sounds hopelessly >>> impractical to do any real, rapid development, and the editor used would >>> drive me round the bend. And where are tools kept, and where are the >>> programs run.) >> >> Are you for real? >> >> Most large opensource projects are on GitHub these days. Do you know >> what a distributed version control system is? > > No, I've no idea. I only use it because it's easier to share files > than using something like Dropbox or my own website. > > But since I have 100s of GB of local storage and several GB of RAM on > my own PC, why would I want to develop stuff online? The actual development isn't online. > So, where would the tools be kept, where would they be run, and where > does the executable run? (If a typical github project isn't so big and > haughty that concept of a single executable file is meaningless.) All that's kept on github is the code for the actual project. The tools (editor, compiler, etc etc) are kept local. It's assumed that the people on the project have compatible tools (you like vi, I like emacs; who cares? You're using gcc 3.2, I'm using 4.6; well, if one of does something the other's version of gcc doesn't like then we have something to talk about). You also have a local copy of all the code. When you are ready to share your changes with the other developers, you send it to the repository; when they are in a state that they are ready to get everybody else's changes, they can get it from the repository (note: I still live on svn; I haven't ended up joining any projects using git, and svn is just fine for my own purposes, so there may be more distribution than I've described here). What does it give you? Most important thing is a version history. If something goes badly awry you can revert to an earlier version. Hopefully updates are frequent enough this means you've lost a couple of days work, not a month -- but that's up to the people on the project. Second most important thing is two people can make changes to a single file, and the system looks for conflicts in the changes. Resolving those problems is, of course, up to the people. Though, now that you mention online development... are people using things like AWS to share a single virtual machine and do their development together? That actually has a lot of appeal, now that I think about it....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 17:12 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ehf2tpF5ugU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #104737 |
On 02/26/17 03:19 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > Though, now that you mention online development... are people using > things like AWS to share a single virtual machine and do their > development together? That actually has a lot of appeal, now that I > think about it.... It can be done, but a more common situation is to remotely share a desktop. I've known people do this for pair programming. A more common use for a cloud (private or public) machines is build boxes which works well with a VCS such as git. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 00:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8t6k4$r0c$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #104720 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 25/02/2017 20:43, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> > [...]
> >> Posted C source may already be intermediate code, not the original
> >> source, if the original was a pseudo-code algorithm or a flow-chart
> >> written on the back of an envelope.
> >>
> >> Maybe people should post pictures of the envelope!
> > [...]
> >
> > The GPL (whatever you may think of it in general) has, IMHO, a
> > reasonable definition of "source code":
> >
> > The ?source code? for a work means the preferred form of the work
> > for making modifications to it. ?Object code? means any non-source
> > form of a work.
> >
> > If you use tools to generate C source and then perform further
> > maintenance directly on the C source, then that's the "source code".
> > If any changes require modifying some input file and re-running
> > the tool, then the C source is not "source code".
>
> Then a lot of open source code I've seen isn't source code.
>
> Comments are often missing to such an extent that I assume it's been
> processed to strip them out. Or to format the code to a certain style.
My own code contains only few comments. And I worked with people
insisting that weird for me formatting is the best one. Maybe
I am a bit naive, but if you told us that the form of your .c
files is your favorite style and you wrote the file by hand
I would believe you. However, you alredy told us that
those are generated files and true source is in another
language...
> Or, if it's in some sort of repository that is periodically updated,
> such as a .bz2 file, then presumably that is a snapshot of the source at
> a particular point in time; the active source will be different.
That alone does not matter.
> (But how does github work; do people actually use it to develop 'live'
> code with the sources actually kept on-line? It sounds hopelessly
> impractical to do any real, rapid development, and the editor used would
> drive me round the bend. And where are tools kept, and where are the
> programs run.)
git 101: you keep copy of the repository on local machine and
develop locally. Once you are done with logical unit of change
(new feature, a bugfix, etc.) you commit. In git commit is
a local operation. At your conveniece you push to github to
make your changes public. I there are multiple developers
you pull changes made by others. Some projects may decide
that only selected devolopers are allowed to change repository
at githup. Then other folks post pull reqests to that
one of selected devolopers will pull ther changes to the
repository. Similarly, if you are the only registered
developer for your project at github, then other folks
still can make pull reqests to propose changes (and you
can either accept or reject them).
> If there really is a legal problem with putting C source code on github,
> because it might not be the 'real' source, then I suppose I could put it
> elsewhere, with some effort (ie digging out my ftp program and looking
> up the server name), eg:
>
> http://www.bcas.freeuk.com/pcc.c
>
> Presumably I can still have documentation on github, complete with links
> such as the above, to the 'source' code stored off-site. Which would be
> an extraordinary stage of affairs, if I can't put C source code on
> github, but I can everything else!
github is free for open source projects. Open source in particular
implies that you provides sources (true sources).
> Would it be allowed to put actual, original non-C source on github, even
> if people can't compile it (except by using manual instructions)? Would
> that make the intermediate C code OK?
>
> If not, then I'd run into a catch-22 situation, as the tools to compile
> the non-C are written in the same non-C languages, and could only be
> bootstrapped by compiling intermediate C.
Generated files are OK if sources are present. In fact several
language project have compiler written in their own language and
generated C files for bootstrap. Some provide sources plus
bootstrap binary.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 00:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20170224005621.a970f0bb60c226665e0a590c@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #104518 |
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:11:01 +0000 BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > And real makefiles rapidly get completely incomprehensible. Just learn the basic rules, that's not more complicated than writing your own building script. Once more, make is POSIX compliant which is pretty common to all Linux and BSD systems. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcu/make.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web