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 6 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 27 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 17:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87fuj46c37.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #104505 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 23/02/17 15:11, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> > <snip> >>> >>> It would be great, except that for all its 2000MB installation, it >>> didn't actually work. >> >> Do you ever think it might be you? > > No, certainly not. > >> I get the feeling lots of people run >> Haskell on Windows. > > Presumably FCVO "lots". :-) Of course. Lots is only "enough for it to be worth making it available". And the current Windows Haskell platform (the "batteries included version" that comes with core packages) is newer than the one in my up-t-date Ubuntu Linux distribution. Someone wants to keep it fresh. One of the original GHC authors now works for Microsoft research so it's hardly surprising that that is an up-to-date version available. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-22 22:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o8l1dg$eh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104384 |
On 22/02/17 18:18, BartC wrote: > On 22/02/2017 15:28, David Brown wrote: >> On 22/02/17 13:43, BartC wrote: > >>> What did you do about the missing 'objstack.h' that is needed for >>> compiling 'gencode.c' that needs to be linked and run to generate >>> insn-code.h that is needed to compile expr.c? >> >> I find no reference to "objstack.h" anywhere in the code. I see a >> reference to "obstack.h" - and a file "obstack.h" in the tarball. > > OK, that was my mistake: it couldn't find 'obstack.h', but I then > searched for 'objstack.h'. The reason it couldn't find it was because it > was in <,> brackets, not double quotes. (For some reason, gcc doesn't > think of looking in the same directory as the main source code for <,> > includes.) You know that "Makefile" that you don't like? It specifies that the compiler should be called with the flag "-I." that adds the current directory to the system include file path - thus #include <obstack.h> will work. (Don't ask my why the code does it this way - I have no idea. But if you want to use manual command lines, you have to make them match the command lines needed to build the software. Or use "make".) > > I'll have another go. However, if the process depends on 'Make sure the > Bison parser generator is installed', then I'm screwed anyway. (I've no > idea how to do that, and I expect it I will have its own configure and > makefile issues.) > > THIS is why I'm keen to show how this stuff can be done: One .c file. > That is it. No 'configure'. No makefile. No external libraries except > what is guaranteed to be available. No other dependencies, except for > any working C compiler. gcc is open source software. They give you the source, and let you modify it yourself. Part of the source of gcc is the file "parse.y" that is used to generate a C file, "parse.tab.c". If they just gave you the C file, they would not have given you the source. No, a project like gcc cannot sensibly be distributed as a single C file - or even a bunch of C and H files that can be compiled willy-nilly. > >> Google a bit - though I recommend looking for a "dvi" viewer rather than >> a "div" viewer. > > Isn't 'dvi' video? "Device independent" file format - it's a lot older than the "digital video interface" connector for screens. > > It is not unlikely that you'll have to install at least >> some bits of a TeX package to get it working (and be prepared for this >> to mean /lots/ of files - a full TeXlive installation is /very/ big). >> Try xdvi if you can't get evince to work. > > It's OK, it's not /that/ unreadable. I don't want want to be > side-tracked into yet ANOTHER configure/makefile imbroglio which will > have its own problems. On Windows, you can install MikTeX, which comes with a dvi viewer. There is no need to configure or make it - you can get the binaries directly (though the source is available to build if you want). But it is big, since it is a full TeX/LaTeX distribution. > > Just to remind ourselves of the task, it is to compile a few dozen .c > and .h files into an application. Not to recreate the entire Linux OS > under Windows. Just to remind /you/ of the task the gcc developers set themselves - to make a compiler that can be built using the standard tools of the day on every system other than DOS. It is not the fault of gcc developers 30 years ago that you choose a system that does not have those tools - nor even their fault that some of the tools now have incompatibilities with the versions they used. > >> Given your abilities with installing tools on Windows, I assume you have >> got some weird version of make on your path. > > Are makefiles not portable across compilers then? That question does not even make sense. make is a utility. Like many, it comes in variations. There are basic standards for make and makefiles, specified by Posix. Some make utilities provide additional features, and some makefiles take advantage of that. In particular, gnu make - far and away the most common implementation of make - has many additional features. And some people have written their own programs called "make" that only support a restricted set of features - Borland is an example. Your bizarre error messages suggest that you have a weird version of make on your path - not one that follows the Posix standards, or a gnu make. > >>> "compile .c modules A, B and C >>> then link them" >> >> That's fine for toy programs. Complicated programs need more than that. >> The build process for gcc includes generating some of the C files using >> bison (a version of yacc). > > Cannot the logic of a makefile be expressed in English? We're talking > about compiling everything from scratch for a new distribution. > Read the makefile and see. <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-22 15:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <85cde415-1baa-43d9-8041-7ec3bb1fbe52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104405 |
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:58:08 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: > > gcc is open source software. They give you the source, and let you > modify it yourself. Part of the source of gcc is the file "parse.y" > that is used to generate a C file, "parse.tab.c". If they just gave you > the C file, they would not have given you the source. > > No, a project like gcc cannot sensibly be distributed as a single C file > - or even a bunch of C and H files that can be compiled willy-nilly. > A single C file no. But a bunch of C and H files that compile with gcc *.c, that should be the goal. There are various annoying difficulties that make this hard to achieve, unfortunately. There's also the issue of internal data files, not for something like gcc where data can reasonably be hardcoded in by hand, but for something like a video game. That's why Baby X has the resource compiler that keeps all the sources in the same simple script file. The resource compiler then needs a massive function which can read any image format the user is likely to require.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-22 15:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <afd3eefe-c25a-4257-8d74-52dad710fb2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104416 |
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 5:32:09 PM UTC-6, Malcolm McLean wrote: > A single C file no. > But a bunch of C and H files that compile with gcc *.c, that should be the > goal. There are various annoying difficulties that make this hard to > achieve, unfortunately. Or, for that matter, a single .c file that #includes everything it needs. Such an approach would likely yield slow build times with large projects, but would avoid dangers of wonky behaviors that can result if compiled object files get out of sync with source files but a make utility doesn't catch that. Compile options may pose some problems, however, but if a project specifies what it requires of an implementation, a consumer could consult the compiler documentation to find out what options would be needed to uphold such requirements on a particular implementation (at least until the next time it's "upgraded").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-22 18:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <2cbsac189f35sd8bh5a6rliaj58dk6a0th@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #104416 |
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:31:47 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:58:08 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> gcc is open source software. They give you the source, and let you >> modify it yourself. Part of the source of gcc is the file "parse.y" >> that is used to generate a C file, "parse.tab.c". If they just gave you >> the C file, they would not have given you the source. >> >> No, a project like gcc cannot sensibly be distributed as a single C file >> - or even a bunch of C and H files that can be compiled willy-nilly. >> >A single C file no. >But a bunch of C and H files that compile with gcc *.c, that should be the >goal. There are various annoying difficulties that make this hard to >achieve, unfortunately. >There's also the issue of internal data files, not for something like >gcc where data can reasonably be hardcoded in by hand, gcc has both grammars, which need to be compiled (usually bison), as well as machine descriptions for the back end which also need to be processed into code which is then compiled. There is no possible way either of those could be "reasonably be hardcoded in by hand".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 00:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8lb99$vp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104421 |
On 23/02/2017 00:35, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:31:47 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McLean > <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:58:08 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: >>> >>> gcc is open source software. They give you the source, and let you >>> modify it yourself. Part of the source of gcc is the file "parse.y" >>> that is used to generate a C file, "parse.tab.c". If they just gave you >>> the C file, they would not have given you the source. >>> >>> No, a project like gcc cannot sensibly be distributed as a single C file >>> - or even a bunch of C and H files that can be compiled willy-nilly. >>> >> A single C file no. >> But a bunch of C and H files that compile with gcc *.c, that should be the >> goal. There are various annoying difficulties that make this hard to >> achieve, unfortunately. >> There's also the issue of internal data files, not for something like >> gcc where data can reasonably be hardcoded in by hand, > > > gcc has both grammars, which need to be compiled (usually bison), as > well as machine descriptions for the back end which also need to be > processed into code which is then compiled. There is no possible way > either of those could be "reasonably be hardcoded in by hand". If some of the C source needs to be auto-generated, then that could be done first before the distribution is assembled. Then there is no need to install Bison etc. It's not as though the C grammar is going to change very often. And the same goes for machine descriptions; some data specific to each machine presumably needs to be part of the distribution. So let that data be the C files that would need to be generated. Then a streamlined version of the app is created for those who just want to run it. (Bearing in mind that in 1987, access to the internet may have been a bit more limited than now; you couldn't just download whatever happened to have been left out.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-22 22:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <2ppsac1h5ukr5nak0ej0ra7bsqhv0irco0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #104424 |
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:46:15 +0000, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 23/02/2017 00:35, Robert Wessel wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:31:47 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McLean >> <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:58:08 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> gcc is open source software. They give you the source, and let you >>>> modify it yourself. Part of the source of gcc is the file "parse.y" >>>> that is used to generate a C file, "parse.tab.c". If they just gave you >>>> the C file, they would not have given you the source. >>>> >>>> No, a project like gcc cannot sensibly be distributed as a single C file >>>> - or even a bunch of C and H files that can be compiled willy-nilly. >>>> >>> A single C file no. >>> But a bunch of C and H files that compile with gcc *.c, that should be the >>> goal. There are various annoying difficulties that make this hard to >>> achieve, unfortunately. >>> There's also the issue of internal data files, not for something like >>> gcc where data can reasonably be hardcoded in by hand, >> >> >> gcc has both grammars, which need to be compiled (usually bison), as >> well as machine descriptions for the back end which also need to be >> processed into code which is then compiled. There is no possible way >> either of those could be "reasonably be hardcoded in by hand". > >If some of the C source needs to be auto-generated, then that could be >done first before the distribution is assembled. Then there is no need >to install Bison etc. It's not as though the C grammar is going to >change very often. > >And the same goes for machine descriptions; some data specific to each >machine presumably needs to be part of the distribution. So let that >data be the C files that would need to be generated. > >Then a streamlined version of the app is created for those who just want >to run it. (Bearing in mind that in 1987, access to the internet may >have been a bit more limited than now; you couldn't just download >whatever happened to have been left out.) So you really want half the package distributed compiled, and the other half not? And then a second version for people who actually want the real source?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 10:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8mf3q$kc7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104450 |
On 23/02/2017 04:39, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:46:15 +0000, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> If some of the C source needs to be auto-generated, then that could be >> done first before the distribution is assembled. Then there is no need >> to install Bison etc. It's not as though the C grammar is going to >> change very often. >> >> And the same goes for machine descriptions; some data specific to each >> machine presumably needs to be part of the distribution. So let that >> data be the C files that would need to be generated. >> >> Then a streamlined version of the app is created for those who just want >> to run it. (Bearing in mind that in 1987, access to the internet may >> have been a bit more limited than now; you couldn't just download >> whatever happened to have been left out.) > > > So you really want half the package distributed compiled, and the > other half not? And then a second version for people who actually > want the real source? Well, yes. That is not much different in concept to downloading either a ready-to-run .exe file, or downloading an entire directory structure consisting of assorted source files in mixed languages, scripts, readmes, makefiles, htmls, ... and not having a clue where to start. My idea is to have the equivalent of the single-file executable but in source form. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8ps66$pk$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #104424 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 23/02/2017 00:35, Robert Wessel wrote:
> >
> > gcc has both grammars, which need to be compiled (usually bison), as
> > well as machine descriptions for the back end which also need to be
> > processed into code which is then compiled. There is no possible way
> > either of those could be "reasonably be hardcoded in by hand".
>
> If some of the C source needs to be auto-generated, then that could be
> done first before the distribution is assembled. Then there is no need
> to install Bison etc. It's not as though the C grammar is going to
> change very often.
Current gcc uses hand written parser. Earler gcc folks used to
distribute .c files produced by bison. So gcc tarball contaned
both .y file and .c file. Similar for several other files.
This is basically so that people building gcc from sources
are not required to install various extra developement tools.
'make' is considered absolutely essential developement tool.
And (like few other tools including shell, sed, awk) it
is part of Posix standard. So GNU folks assume that any
decent developement platform will have such tools. And
you know that while consumer versions of Windows are not
intended to be develomenent platform, you can easily get
Windows versions of Posix tools (however, in the Dos era several
vendors created cripled versions which still can be found
on moders Windows, so you need to be careful to use real thing
(like Mingw) and not some cirppleware like Borland make).
Some .c files in gcc are generated by C programs. Since you
need to have C compiler to compile gcc they cause no extra
dependency on tools, so no real need to distribute them.
Bunch of .h files used by gcc are created by transforming
system .h files. Due to copyright gcc is not able to distribute
.h headers form proprietary systems. But such header files
are needed to access system. In several cases vendor provided
header files containded violatins of standard C, so gcc
had a special script (called 'fixincludes') to remove known
problem from header files.
> And the same goes for machine descriptions; some data specific to each
> machine presumably needs to be part of the distribution. So let that
> data be the C files that would need to be generated.
You fight bloat and now you advocate distribution of generated
files. In 1987 they cared more about size, so tendency was to
distribute only true source skipping anything that could be
generated.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 11:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o8mcoq$d9n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104416 |
On 23/02/17 00:31, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:58:08 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> gcc is open source software. They give you the source, and let you >> modify it yourself. Part of the source of gcc is the file "parse.y" >> that is used to generate a C file, "parse.tab.c". If they just gave you >> the C file, they would not have given you the source. >> >> No, a project like gcc cannot sensibly be distributed as a single C file >> - or even a bunch of C and H files that can be compiled willy-nilly. >> > A single C file no. > But a bunch of C and H files that compile with gcc *.c, that should be the > goal. /Why/ should that be a goal? It would be completely against the goals of GNU and the gcc project, and offer no benefit to anyone except perhaps Bart. And as I noted in a reply to Bart, it is impossible for gcc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 19:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoaucgp.1411.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #104362 |
On Wed, 2017-02-22, BartC wrote: > On 22/02/2017 09:09, David Brown wrote: >> On 21/02/17 22:31, BartC wrote: ... >> People use "make" because it is very convenient, does an excellent job, ... >> and once you have learned the basics, it is easier than most >> alternatives. People have used it for 30 years and still use it, >> because it is a /good/ tool. > > No, a good tool is this: > > "compile .c modules A, B and C > then link them" CFLAGS=-W -Wall -pedantic -ansi -g -Os foo: A.o foo: B.o foo: C.o $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $< That's a more complete instruction -- human-readable /and/ it's executable by make. (The incremental build aspect is missing, but you said you didn't care about that.) > Don't forget that for such a task as this - doing a one-time build of > something that has already been developed - you don't need incremental > builds or anything fancy. You just want the whole lot compiled. It seems dangerous to have two ways to build the project: one that the developers use, and one that the users use. Not to mention that the users might want to be developers, too. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8nfh5$dfr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104515 |
On 23/02/2017 19:03, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-22, BartC wrote:
>> On 22/02/2017 09:09, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 21/02/17 22:31, BartC wrote:
> ...
>>> People use "make" because it is very convenient, does an excellent job,
> ...
>>> and once you have learned the basics, it is easier than most
>>> alternatives. People have used it for 30 years and still use it,
>>> because it is a /good/ tool.
>>
>> No, a good tool is this:
>>
>> "compile .c modules A, B and C
>> then link them"
>
> CFLAGS=-W -Wall -pedantic -ansi -g -Os
>
> foo: A.o
> foo: B.o
> foo: C.o
> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $<
>
> That's a more complete instruction -- human-readable /and/ it's
> executable by make.
I'll have to take your word that $@ and $< are human readable. $(CC) I
assume is some variable set up to refer to the C compiler in use. But
this seems to assume gcc-compatible options; what if someone wants to
use a different compiler with a different option scheme?
And real makefiles rapidly get completely incomprehensible.
Assuming somebody knows how to compile code and form an executable, a
description in plain language can be easily transcribed into a script,
or into a makefile if they understand that, or the instructions can just
be followed manually.
Or even - radical I know - there could be a makefile *and* a plain
language description.
Here are the English build instructions for my upcoming C language
system, starting from a directory containing nothing but bcc32.c and
hello.c:
"Compile bcc32.c for a 32-bit target and link into an executable
'bcc'"
Examples using gcc:
gcc -O3 -m32 bcc32.c -obcc.exe # windows
gcc -O3 -m32 bcc32.c -obcc -lm -ldl # linux
Compile and run hello.c using:
bcc hello.c # windows
./bcc hello.c # linux
Do people really have objections to making things that simple?
>> Don't forget that for such a task as this - doing a one-time build of
>> something that has already been developed - you don't need incremental
>> builds or anything fancy. You just want the whole lot compiled.
>
> It seems dangerous to have two ways to build the project: one that the
> developers use, and one that the users use. Not to mention that the
> users might want to be developers, too.
I bet there are a lot more non-developers than developers.
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_IHrA.22938$fI2.19705@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #104518 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>On 23/02/2017 19:03, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Wed, 2017-02-22, BartC wrote:
>>> No, a good tool is this:
>>>
>>> "compile .c modules A, B and C
>>> then link them"
>>
>> CFLAGS=-W -Wall -pedantic -ansi -g -Os
>>
>> foo: A.o
>> foo: B.o
>> foo: C.o
>> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $<
>>
>> That's a more complete instruction -- human-readable /and/ it's
>> executable by make.
>
>I'll have to take your word that $@ and $< are human readable. $(CC) I
>assume is some variable set up to refer to the C compiler in use. But
>this seems to assume gcc-compatible options; what if someone wants to
>use a different compiler with a different option scheme?
CFLAGS, as a variable, can be set to whatever set of flags
you need. Since you can include one makefile from another,
one small makefile could have the compiler-dependent options
and you include the makefile fragment for the target compiler.
Here's part of a real-world makefile from a subdirectory of a large
project:
TOP=..
include $(TOP)/Makefile.defs
SOURCES = command_table.cpp
SOURCES += contention_protocol.cpp
SOURCES += dcp.cpp
SOURCES += dcp_header.cpp
OBJECTS = $(SOURCES:.cpp=.o)
all: $(LIBCOMMON)
$(LIBCOMMON): $(OBJECTS)
ar cr $@ $+
include $(TOP)/Makefile.rules
The top-level Makefile.defs contains all the definitions
specific to the project. If you need another object file
in the archive, simply add another SOURCES += line. The
top-level Makefile.rules defines the added rules for the project.
e.g.
%.o: %.c
@echo " COMPILE $<"
$(HUSHCOMPILE)$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -MMD -o $@ -c $<
%.o: %.cpp
@echo " COMPILE $<"
$(HUSHCOMPILE)$(COMPILE.cpp) -MMD -o $@ $<
%.s: %.cpp
@echo " COMPILE-TO-ASM $<"
$(HUSHCOMPILE)$(COMPILE.cpp) -MMD -S $<
%.so: %.o
@echo " BUILDSO $@"
$(HUSHCOMPILE)$(LD) -o $@ $(SOLDFLAGS)
%.icm5: %.sprasm
@echo " SPRASM $<"
$(HUSHCOMPILE)$(SPRASM) $(SPRASM_FLAGS) -o $@ $<
>
>And real makefiles rapidly get completely incomprehensible.
To you, perhaps.
>Here are the English build instructions for my upcoming C language
>system, starting from a directory containing nothing but bcc32.c and
>hello.c:
>
> "Compile bcc32.c for a 32-bit target and link into an executable
> 'bcc'"
That's a rather simple, contrived example. How about providing
a real-world example for a project with several hundred source
files distributed across a set of subdirectories, where some of
the source files are generated at build time.
>
>Examples using gcc:
>
> gcc -O3 -m32 bcc32.c -obcc.exe # windows
> gcc -O3 -m32 bcc32.c -obcc -lm -ldl # linux
>
>Compile and run hello.c using:
>
> bcc hello.c # windows
> ./bcc hello.c # linux
>
>Do people really have objections to making things that simple?
I don't believe you can extend your example to real projects,
unfortunately.
>
>I bet there are a lot more non-developers than developers.
Not writing code. By definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 21:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8njjr$t54$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104526 |
On 23/02/2017 20:36, Scott Lurndal wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> And real makefiles rapidly get completely incomprehensible. > > To you, perhaps. I've been coding since 1976 and have never used nor needed a makefile. Until it's been inflicted on me because it's the only way to use someone's library, or to try out someone's application. >> Here are the English build instructions for my upcoming C language >> system, starting from a directory containing nothing but bcc32.c and >> hello.c: >> >> "Compile bcc32.c for a 32-bit target and link into an executable >> 'bcc'" > > That's a rather simple, contrived example. How about providing > a real-world example for a project with several hundred source > files distributed across a set of subdirectories, where some of > the source files are generated at build time. No, it will be a real example. Here's an existing one: https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/clex/clex.c and another: https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/pcc.c The first is a 10-module project. The second nearly 30 modules, and may have all sorts of bits and pieces which are created with scripts. And both projects have to translate to C code suitable for one-file aggregations, then scripts are used to join them together. However, I made the decision not to inflict any of this nonsense, which would need to include many of my own programs (which have circular dependencies than would drive anyone mad), on anyone who is simply interested in running those programs. It can work because /I make the effort/. Have a look at the SQLite aggregation which is a single file version created exactly for the reason of making it easy to add to your application. (It might be 4 files actually, with headers, but the main file is one module of some 150Kloc.) >> Do people really have objections to making things that simple? > > I don't believe you can extend your example to real projects, > unfortunately. Well, it can. Of course you always find some more elaborate example to prove me wrong. And yes it is true that you might not be able to take any application that has already been allowed to grow to unmanageable complexity over years, and tame it into one-file format. Or maybe it is a project which doesn't build into a tidy, single executable anyway. But then, one of my test files is a single file gcc.c source, 750Kloc, which purportedly contains the CC1 component of the the gcc C compiler. >> I bet there are a lot more non-developers than developers. > > Not writing code. By definition. I mean non-developers of the library or add-on that they are trying to make use of. How many C developers who want to incorporate GMP or GTK or SDL or CAIRO or a simple Jpeg library actually want to mess about with the sources of those libraries? They just want binaries, as .a or .lib or .so or .dll, and some headers to go with those/ But some require you to build from source, with all this makefile/configure business. Or, if they want to distribute their own project with its own directory structure and whatnot, they don't want the extra headache of pandering to the requirements of the add-on. And there might be multiple add-ons all clamouring for attention with their own build agendas. Add-ons should keep a low-profile... -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8pu0o$pk$3@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #104531 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> No, it will be a real example. Here's an existing one:
>
> https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/clex/clex.c
>
> and another:
>
> https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/pcc.c
>
> The first is a 10-module project. The second nearly 30 modules, and may
> have all sorts of bits and pieces which are created with scripts. And
> both projects have to translate to C code suitable for one-file
> aggregations, then scripts are used to join them together.
>
> However, I made the decision not to inflict any of this nonsense, which
> would need to include many of my own programs (which have circular
> dependencies than would drive anyone mad), on anyone who is simply
> interested in running those programs.
Translation: you decided that you will not distribute the source
of your programs, so that anybody beside you making modifications
will work without benefit of your tools and insight from real
source.
> It can work because /I make the effort/.
If you make effort to provide extra distribution format, then
this is nice. But when you withdraw real source, that is
not nice. In fact, it looks like violation of github terms
of use (which require sources). And makes any use of your
code problematic in free projects (basically, your code can not
be legaly included in GPL project).
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8putb$sfu$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: >> However, I made the decision not to inflict any of this nonsense, which >> would need to include many of my own programs (which have circular >> dependencies than would drive anyone mad), on anyone who is simply >> interested in running those programs. > > Translation: you decided that you will not distribute the source > of your programs, so that anybody beside you making modifications > will work without benefit of your tools and insight from real > source. Traslation: you would rather people have to deal with a nightmare distribution of a program they simply want to run, rather than something they can just compile and link (Tiny C manages this is something under a quarter of a second). >> 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. I don't have a problem with giving original source, but it's not so useful as it's too complicated to get together everything needed to build it. Also it's not in a mainstream language. (My next compiler will fix some of that. Also the aggregated one-source format used can be separated out into into the original modules.) In fact, it looks like violation of github terms > of use (which require sources). Fine, I'll stick it on Dropbox (but /that/ is a nightmare to use - for me). Or, better still, I'll keep as a private project exclusively for my own benefit. > And makes any use of your > code problematic in free projects (basically, your code can not > be legaly included in GPL project). > This has echoes of what happened when the mills were mechanised during England's Industrial Revolution... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 19:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8q30c$4he$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #104619 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 24/02/2017 18:28, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> I don't have a problem with giving original source, but it's not so
> useful as it's too complicated to get together everything needed to
> build it. Also it's not in a mainstream language. (My next compiler will
> fix some of that. Also the aggregated one-source format used can be
> separated out into into the original modules.)
You have rather skewed notion of what is useful. Important
element of open source software is ability to cooperate.
For people interesed in using your language binary is enough.
Binary may be provided by you, but also by some other
person who will need sources for this. If you genereted
C works, it may be enough for generating binaries. But
frequently program need fixes. While your generated C
(at least parts that I looked at) is manageble, it contains
enough junk that working with source probably is easier.
There are folks who read sources, either looking for ideas
or to assess code for quality/potenetial security problems.
Again real source is better here. If somebody fixes a
problem in your compiler patch to generated C is probably
of little use to you. Patch to source is likely to be more
useful.
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.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 12:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f77dc30-c645-4047-942c-6ec8db4d34bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104628 |
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 1:53:56 PM UTC-6, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > You have rather skewed notion of what is useful. Important > element of open source software is ability to cooperate. > For people interesed in using your language binary is enough. > Binary may be provided by you, but also by some other > person who will need sources for this. If you genereted > C works, it may be enough for generating binaries. But > frequently program need fixes. While your generated C > (at least parts that I looked at) is manageble, it contains > enough junk that working with source probably is easier. > There are folks who read sources, either looking for ideas > or to assess code for quality/potenetial security problems. > Again real source is better here. If somebody fixes a > problem in your compiler patch to generated C is probably > of little use to you. Patch to source is likely to be more > useful. If the C code is generated by a widely-available general-purpose utility, distributing the files necessary for that utility to generate the C code may be helpful. If, however, the C code was generated by something which written as a one-off to fulfill certain very-specific needs, the time required for anyone else to understand that utility and its limitations may exceed any value they could receive from it, especially if the output is somewhat editable (e.g. on some projects I've had a QBASIC utility which takes a list of I/O control bits (e.g. PUMP_MOTOR) and generated a bunch of macros for them like: #define PUMP_MOTOR_ON() iomap[3] |= 4 #define PUMP_MOTOR_OFF() iomap[3] &= ~4 #define SET_PUMP_MOTOR(x) set_io(3,4,(x)) etc. If it were necessary to edit the declarations without access to QBASIC, that could be done by manually editing the C file or using cut/paste to add new control bits. Using the utility to create hundreds of such macros was more convenient than creating them with manual cut/paste would have been, but the auto-generated code would be perfectly workable and editable in its own right should the need arise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8q5gp$klp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104628 |
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. They kept things (source, output code, editor, compiler, library) in memory as much as possible, so development cycles were very fast, even on 8-bit computers. Sometimes they were cross-compiling code to run on an attached board that was under development, and the IDE knew how to download the code and control the signals on that board to run the program. The language I created was tailored /exactly/ to the work I was doing (a lot of it was developing experimental computer and new video graphics boards). Later, I created interpreted languages to do much of the work, especially GUIs, of my applications. Then the application became my IDE: while the app was running (still with test data in place) I could edit, compile and run individual interpreted modules to try things out /without restarting the application/ and without needed to get the data to the same test point (a lot was concerned with 2D and 3D graphics apps.) With a lot of the work I've recently done, the programs are written in interpreted code. From within the IDE (still a crude console app) I edit a module, then run it instantly. The interpreter will run the code without messing around with object files and linkers as is common with C. 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. 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. 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. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 10:11 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ehblsuF5ugU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #104637 |
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. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web