Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #95408 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-30 05:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-03 03:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 410 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 05:42 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-30 17:17 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-30 12:13 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-30 12:52 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-30 13:38 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-30 14:32 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 13:49 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-30 14:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 14:14 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 14:20 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 14:23 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 13:40 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 01:45 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-01 07:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 08:07 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 16:55 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 11:58 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 12:34 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 12:49 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-01 20:13 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-02 12:45 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 20:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-15 10:50 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-31 12:37 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 06:01 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:11 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-10-31 01:26 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 12:49 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2016-10-31 14:16 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 14:20 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 14:55 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-31 08:10 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:27 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 09:12 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 09:20 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2016-11-05 04:24 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 16:35 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-31 09:59 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 17:04 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-31 12:16 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 19:19 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 08:31 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-01 22:07 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 01:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-02 09:18 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-02 15:45 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:48 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:58 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:05 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 17:17 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-02 10:37 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-02 20:38 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2016-11-05 04:37 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 14:12 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2016-11-07 00:37 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-02 11:03 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:20 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:24 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 09:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 16:27 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 17:46 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 11:46 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 19:41 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 13:10 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 20:50 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-01 21:04 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 22:22 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-01 22:54 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 18:53 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 12:24 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 20:12 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 13:21 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 21:11 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:46 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 15:28 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 02:32 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 15:26 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 15:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-02 12:53 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 16:39 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 16:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 02:21 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 05:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 12:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:03 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:14 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 09:19 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 17:54 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 11:47 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 19:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 12:28 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-12 13:36 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-13 11:07 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-12 22:27 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:49 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-15 10:23 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:47 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-15 10:05 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-12 17:06 -0500
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 19:35 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 13:12 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 13:37 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 09:45 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 18:33 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:41 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 18:51 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 08:43 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 16:14 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:22 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 23:45 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:58 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 17:11 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 01:27 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 02:31 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 02:41 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 03:15 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 11:14 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 11:30 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 12:10 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-01 11:23 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-01 09:33 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-01 22:16 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-01 20:36 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-02 09:20 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 09:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-03 22:09 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 17:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 11:59 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:51 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 06:26 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:32 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 15:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 08:50 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 09:05 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 17:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 12:38 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 22:55 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 00:04 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 02:06 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 10:05 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:07 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:45 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 09:17 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 19:10 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 12:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 20:13 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 13:37 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 19:18 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 13:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 20:54 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 22:31 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 23:53 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-03 08:41 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 14:05 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-02 16:17 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 17:31 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-03 08:20 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:59 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 09:53 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-04 22:32 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 07:57 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 16:47 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 09:09 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 18:04 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 12:27 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-05 14:42 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-05 14:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-06 17:29 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-06 18:42 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-15 10:51 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-15 12:16 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-15 12:34 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-15 13:27 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-15 13:43 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-15 14:02 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-15 15:01 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-15 16:00 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-15 17:06 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-15 22:49 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-16 04:30 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-16 08:37 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-16 09:34 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-16 09:49 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-16 10:27 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-17 13:03 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-11-18 09:08 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-16 10:31 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-05 08:14 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 21:43 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 16:16 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 00:05 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 06:07 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 01:59 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 02:19 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 03:25 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 10:51 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 11:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 12:26 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 13:05 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 14:50 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 15:00 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-03 16:27 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 08:38 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 09:07 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 10:00 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-03 09:00 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 16:29 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 16:43 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 17:14 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 17:23 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 18:18 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 18:38 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 18:42 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 18:56 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 12:15 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 20:26 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 13:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 21:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-03 19:46 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 02:46 +0800
[OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 11:59 +0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 12:14 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-03 15:27 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 08:45 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 16:33 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-03 09:57 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 12:12 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 02:02 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-04 11:15 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 12:12 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 13:52 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 15:28 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 17:17 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 19:04 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 12:34 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 20:20 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 14:52 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 15:42 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-05 11:40 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 21:24 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 21:23 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 21:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-05 15:57 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 17:00 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 19:59 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-04 17:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 12:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 20:30 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-04 21:13 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 15:13 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 22:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 17:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-04 16:19 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 22:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 02:14 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 11:13 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 14:23 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 15:38 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 16:13 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 17:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 14:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 23:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-05 16:20 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 23:46 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-06 08:26 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 18:41 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 23:57 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 00:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 02:12 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:52 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 12:02 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 11:02 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 11:45 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 12:51 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 14:19 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 14:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 15:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 15:57 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 16:31 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 17:40 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 10:16 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 19:18 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:40 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 20:12 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 21:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-07 20:42 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-07 08:17 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-07 22:27 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-07 12:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:12 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 00:09 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:46 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 13:10 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 21:22 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 21:44 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 21:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-06 14:11 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:47 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-06 18:14 -0500
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-07 01:36 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-07 00:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-07 11:32 -0500
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-07 09:28 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 10:49 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-06 14:02 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 10:57 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-07 21:55 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-07 22:38 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-07 23:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-08 00:02 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-07 19:21 -0500
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-08 00:25 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 07:02 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 15:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:03 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 08:10 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:31 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 18:15 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 23:32 -0600
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 08:04 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 20:54 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 13:02 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 12:53 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 21:06 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 21:36 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 14:06 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-07 00:39 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 18:12 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-06 19:18 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-07 10:55 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 12:00 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-07 22:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 21:03 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 10:26 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 06:34 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 08:06 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 08:35 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 11:26 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 11:58 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 12:10 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 12:35 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 13:27 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 21:39 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 13:55 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 16:44 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 18:54 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 13:27 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 12:59 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 21:35 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 13:56 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 22:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 14:33 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 14:08 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:32 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 23:00 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-07 01:02 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-05 12:16 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 01:32 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-04 19:13 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-05 16:34 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 11:29 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 14:09 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-04 20:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-05 02:06 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-04 09:05 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 17:05 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-03 15:08 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 20:21 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 20:35 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:47 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 08:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-03 18:09 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 18:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-03 19:53 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 20:52 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-03 23:09 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:08 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-03 22:24 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 11:50 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 16:28 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:07 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:18 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:30 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:38 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:47 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2016-11-05 04:11 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 10:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 14:06 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 17:38 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 17:44 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 19:12 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 19:18 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:53 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 08:25 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-31 08:05 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:27 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:59 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:36 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:36 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 12:12 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 12:59 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 13:27 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 13:40 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 03:58 -0700
Page 18 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 Next page →
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 08:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <29e135f4-08f8-4dbe-9505-27688044d4eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96093 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 10:05:32 AM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
> supercat writes:
> [...]
> > The Standard would allow for arrays with an even number of elements to
> > be placed in structures using an alignment coarser than the element type,
> > and on some hardware platforms (especially those which do not have octet-
> > addressable memory but emulate an octet "char" type) there may be benefits
> > to doing so.
>
> The standard allows for any struct member other than the first to be
> placed at any alignment the compiler chooses, as long as it satisfies
> the alignment requirements of the member's type. In
> struct { char c0; char c1; };
> the compiler could legally place c1 at offset 137.
And so long as structures with a common initial sequence lay out members
of that common initial sequence identically in all cases where it would
be possible for a pointer to such a type to be passed to external code.
I see no evidence that the authors of the Standard intended to exempt
compilers from that requirement in cases where the actual *physical*
layout is not observable. Given:
int foo1(void)
{ struct s { int x,y; double z; } v;
v.y = offsetof(s, y);
return v.y;
}
and
int foo2(void)
{ struct s { int x,y; float z; };
v.y = offsetof(s, y);
return v.y;
}
the Standard would clearly not require that the code for the two methods
above physically store v.y in memory at the same offset from v [or even
store it in memory at all], but I doubt the authors deliberately intended
to allow the functions to report different values. I'm not sure anything
would actually require that they return the same value as each other, or
even that each function always return the same value every time it is
invoked.
The vast majority of compilers use a layout rule that simply places each
element at the first offset compatible with its alignment and, as noted,
treats each array as a sequence of the element type. While it's fine that
the Standard doesn't require that compilers which have been doing something
else since time immemorial must change their behavior and break existing
code, there would also be advantages to allowing code to specify that it
needs a structure to be laid out using the same rules that the vast majority
of implementations already happen to use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 11:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <lnlgwtrcx1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #96100 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 10:05:32 AM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>> [...]
>> > The Standard would allow for arrays with an even number of elements to
>> > be placed in structures using an alignment coarser than the element type,
>> > and on some hardware platforms (especially those which do not have octet-
>> > addressable memory but emulate an octet "char" type) there may be benefits
>> > to doing so.
>>
>> The standard allows for any struct member other than the first to be
>> placed at any alignment the compiler chooses, as long as it satisfies
>> the alignment requirements of the member's type. In
>> struct { char c0; char c1; };
>> the compiler could legally place c1 at offset 137.
>
> And so long as structures with a common initial sequence lay out members
> of that common initial sequence identically in all cases where it would
> be possible for a pointer to such a type to be passed to external code.
Well, the standard imposes that requirement only when an appropriate
union type is visible (N1570 6.5.2.3p6).
But my point is that your "arrays with an even number of elements"
condition does not apply.
[...]
--
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 | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 11:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <d0b7cf58-ed39-42cb-be70-162c555fae95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96116 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
> supercat writes:
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 10:05:32 AM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> supercat writes:
> >> [...]
> >> > The Standard would allow for arrays with an even number of elements to
> >> > be placed in structures using an alignment coarser than the element type,
> >> > and on some hardware platforms (especially those which do not have octet-
> >> > addressable memory but emulate an octet "char" type) there may be benefits
> >> > to doing so.
> >>
> >> The standard allows for any struct member other than the first to be
> >> placed at any alignment the compiler chooses, as long as it satisfies
> >> the alignment requirements of the member's type. In
> >> struct { char c0; char c1; };
> >> the compiler could legally place c1 at offset 137.
> >
> > And so long as structures with a common initial sequence lay out members
> > of that common initial sequence identically in all cases where it would
> > be possible for a pointer to such a type to be passed to external code.
>
> Well, the standard imposes that requirement only when an appropriate
> union type is visible (N1570 6.5.2.3p6).
>
> But my point is that your "arrays with an even number of elements"
> condition does not apply.
Fair point, though I think the OP was expecting that the array would be
treated specially because it had an even number of elements. I'm not sure
why the OP would have found it remotely surprising if an array with an odd
number of elements didn't have padding before it, since such an array
cannot both start and end on a double-size boundary no matter how it's
placed. If a system uses 8-byte cache lines, a uint32_t[4] that's aligned
on an even boundary will fit in two cache lines, while one that isn't will
span 3. A uint32_t[5], however, is going to span three cache lines no
matter how it's placed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 12:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <38a3e4ff-b98b-451c-8912-a5fba5d607ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96116 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote: > supercat writes: > > And so long as structures with a common initial sequence lay out members > > of that common initial sequence identically in all cases where it would > > be possible for a pointer to such a type to be passed to external code. > > Well, the standard imposes that requirement only when an appropriate > union type is visible (N1570 6.5.2.3p6). If a pointer to a structure is exposed to code in a separate translation unit that contains a structure whose tag and element types all match, the code in the other translation unit would be allowed to access any of the elements in the structure using its structure type. Further, if that other translation unit contains another structure definition with a common initial sequence, along with a union that contains both structures, the CIS rule would force the layout of the first struct to be compatible with that of the second. Is there any way I'm not seeing by which a conforming implementation could vary the layout of earlier struct members based upon the contents of later ones in cases where the struct might be observed by code the implementation knows nothing about (i.e. "external code")?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 12:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <ln4m3hr9qh.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #96126 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>> > And so long as structures with a common initial sequence lay out members
>> > of that common initial sequence identically in all cases where it would
>> > be possible for a pointer to such a type to be passed to external code.
>>
>> Well, the standard imposes that requirement only when an appropriate
>> union type is visible (N1570 6.5.2.3p6).
>
> If a pointer to a structure is exposed to code in a separate translation
> unit that contains a structure whose tag and element types all match, the
> code in the other translation unit would be allowed to access any of the
> elements in the structure using its structure type. Further, if that other
> translation unit contains another structure definition with a common initial
> sequence, along with a union that contains both structures, the CIS rule
> would force the layout of the first struct to be compatible with that of
> the second.
>
> Is there any way I'm not seeing by which a conforming implementation could
> vary the layout of earlier struct members based upon the contents of later
> ones in cases where the struct might be observed by code the implementation
> knows nothing about (i.e. "external code")?
Sure. Assume sizeof (int) == 4. You could define
struct foo { int a; int b; };
struct bar { int a; int b; };
in a single translation unit, and the compiler could give b in struct
foo an offset of 4 bytes, and b in struct bar an offset of 8 bytes. I
don't think that quite matches your criteria, but it suggests something
that would.
I don't think any sane compiler would do this, but it's conforming.
--
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 | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 13:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <e7a2735b-c547-4e01-9b1c-36317904893f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96133 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 2:35:07 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
> supercat writes:
> > Is there any way I'm not seeing by which a conforming implementation could
> > vary the layout of earlier struct members based upon the contents of later
> > ones in cases where the struct might be observed by code the implementation
> > knows nothing about (i.e. "external code")?
>
> Sure. Assume sizeof (int) == 4. You could define
>
> struct foo { int a; int b; };
> struct bar { int a; int b; };
>
> in a single translation unit, and the compiler could give b in struct
> foo an offset of 4 bytes, and b in struct bar an offset of 8 bytes. I
> don't think that quite matches your criteria, but it suggests something
> that would.
What happens if an external translation unit defines:
struct foo { int a; int b; };
struct bar { int a; int b; };
union foobar { struct foo ff; struct bar bb;};
Even if objects of the union type could only be used in places where the
union declaration was visible, the Standard would require that a function
which accepts an argument of type "struct foo*" should be able to accept
pointers to objects of that type, or to the "ff" members of objects of
type "union foobar". Making the CIS rule work for the union would require
the compiler to use the same offset for both "b" members, and making the
code properly exchange pointers to non-union objects of individual types
"foo" and "bar" with outside code that knows nothing of the union would
require that such outside code use the same offsets as the code that knows
about the union.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 21:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <nvtglp$vpt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96139 |
On 08/11/2016 21:27, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 2:35:07 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>>> Is there any way I'm not seeing by which a conforming implementation could
>>> vary the layout of earlier struct members based upon the contents of later
>>> ones in cases where the struct might be observed by code the implementation
>>> knows nothing about (i.e. "external code")?
>>
>> Sure. Assume sizeof (int) == 4. You could define
>>
>> struct foo { int a; int b; };
>> struct bar { int a; int b; };
>>
>> in a single translation unit, and the compiler could give b in struct
>> foo an offset of 4 bytes, and b in struct bar an offset of 8 bytes. I
>> don't think that quite matches your criteria, but it suggests something
>> that would.
>
> What happens if an external translation unit defines:
>
> struct foo { int a; int b; };
> struct bar { int a; int b; };
> union foobar { struct foo ff; struct bar bb;};
>
> Even if objects of the union type could only be used in places where the
> union declaration was visible, the Standard would require that a function
> which accepts an argument of type "struct foo*" should be able to accept
> pointers to objects of that type, or to the "ff" members of objects of
> type "union foobar". Making the CIS rule work for the union would require
> the compiler to use the same offset for both "b" members, and making the
> code properly exchange pointers to non-union objects of individual types
> "foo" and "bar" with outside code that knows nothing of the union would
> require that such outside code use the same offsets as the code that knows
> about the union.
The problems from my point of view are a little different.
A compiler can do what it likes. But suppose this struct is used in a
library in a shared .dll or .so file. That file could be used not only
by code in different languages, but code from different C compilers.
Then if there is a C header associated with the library containing the
struct definition, any other compilers must use the same layout
decisions (alignment and padding; I assume order can't be changed).
So how do different C compilers agree how to do this? Is this specified
for each platform?
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 13:55 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <03033cbb-e1e6-4f9a-9dbb-13cfc03d8f20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96140 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 3:39:41 PM UTC-6, Bart wrote: > So how do different C compilers agree how to do this? Is this specified > for each platform? Many platforms have a document called the "Application Binary Interface" (ABI) which describes how such issues are handled. In some cases, the ABI will be published by a chip manufacturer. In others, the first manufacturer to write a compiler for a platform will document what it does and others will hopefully do things the same way. Sometimes two or more compiler vendors may specify different ways of doing things, but in cases where that occurs one or both will often provide options to do things in a fashion compatible with the other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 16:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <lnr36lpjmz.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #96139 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 2:35:07 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>> > Is there any way I'm not seeing by which a conforming implementation could
>> > vary the layout of earlier struct members based upon the contents of later
>> > ones in cases where the struct might be observed by code the implementation
>> > knows nothing about (i.e. "external code")?
>>
>> Sure. Assume sizeof (int) == 4. You could define
>>
>> struct foo { int a; int b; };
>> struct bar { int a; int b; };
>>
>> in a single translation unit, and the compiler could give b in struct
>> foo an offset of 4 bytes, and b in struct bar an offset of 8 bytes. I
>> don't think that quite matches your criteria, but it suggests something
>> that would.
>
> What happens if an external translation unit defines:
>
> struct foo { int a; int b; };
> struct bar { int a; int b; };
> union foobar { struct foo ff; struct bar bb;};
>
> Even if objects of the union type could only be used in places where the
> union declaration was visible, the Standard would require that a function
> which accepts an argument of type "struct foo*" should be able to accept
> pointers to objects of that type, or to the "ff" members of objects of
> type "union foobar". Making the CIS rule work for the union would require
> the compiler to use the same offset for both "b" members, and making the
> code properly exchange pointers to non-union objects of individual types
> "foo" and "bar" with outside code that knows nothing of the union would
> require that such outside code use the same offsets as the code that knows
> about the union.
Honestly, I haven't paid much attention to the CIS rule. I think I'll
leave it to others to address this.
--
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 | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 18:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <87bmxrm88h.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #95932 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > Uh, the only rule (and it isn't a particularly arcane rule) is that, > when used in a value context, the name of an array is treated as a > pointer to its first element. That's not /such/ a big deal, surely? Yet too complex for Bart's mental model based on his years experience. Also, too complex for millions of other hypothetical people, none of whom Bart can name. > And the wheels stay firmly on. The wheels fell off some time ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 13:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <871syowxfe.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #95917 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 06/11/2016 11:02, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> (And actually, I found your attitude so astonishing at one time that I >>> was lost for words. "Why would you ever need a pointer to an array?"!) >> >> That looks like a quote, but it does not look like something I'd say. >> Where did i say it? > > (clc 19th August 2016) > > BC: >>> Someone wants a 'pointer to array to T', they declare 'pointer to >>> array of T', and access it by dereferencing the 'pointer' part and >>> indexing the 'array' part. That sounds perfectly reasonable. And the >>> reader can understand exactly what's going on, as it also exactly >>> matches the declaration. >>> >>> Are you with me so far? > > BB: >> No, that just alters my question. If that is what you are doing, I >> would to ask why you want a pointer to an array in the first place. As I thought: an entirely different statement. I think we should draw this exchange to a close. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 12:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <lnd1i8tjdr.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95917 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 06/11/2016 11:02, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> (And actually, I found your attitude so astonishing at one time that I
>>> was lost for words. "Why would you ever need a pointer to an array?"!)
>>
>> That looks like a quote, but it does not look like something I'd say.
>> Where did i say it?
>
> (clc 19th August 2016)
>
> BC:
> >> Someone wants a 'pointer to array to T', they declare 'pointer to
> >> array of T', and access it by dereferencing the 'pointer' part and
> >> indexing the 'array' part. That sounds perfectly reasonable. And the
> >> reader can understand exactly what's going on, as it also exactly
> >> matches the declaration.
> >>
> >> Are you with me so far?
>
> BB:
> > No, that just alters my question. If that is what you are doing, I
> > would to ask why you want a pointer to an array in the first place.
You misquoted what Ben said. You significantly changed the
meaning of what he said. You misrepresented his actual words
to say something that blatantly contradicts his actual opinion,
and you put it in quotation marks, implying that you were directly
quoting his exact words.
You said that he asked why you would *ever* need a pointer to an
array, which would have been a moderately absurd question. In fact,
he asked why you would need a pointer to an array *in one particular
context", a very different question (and a perfectly reasonable one).
I don't think you were being deliberately dishonest. I think your
misrepresentation was a result of your failure to understand what
Ben was talking about. But whatever the cause, I suggest that
you owe Ben an apology and an explicit acknowledgement that the
quotation does not reflect what he actually wrote.
--
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 | 2016-11-06 21:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <nvo7le$gsl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95975 |
On 06/11/2016 20:59, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 06/11/2016 11:02, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> (And actually, I found your attitude so astonishing at one time that I >>>> was lost for words. "Why would you ever need a pointer to an array?"!) >>> >>> That looks like a quote, but it does not look like something I'd say. >>> Where did i say it? >> >> (clc 19th August 2016) >> >> BC: >> >> Someone wants a 'pointer to array to T', they declare 'pointer to >> >> array of T', and access it by dereferencing the 'pointer' part and >> >> indexing the 'array' part. That sounds perfectly reasonable. And the >> >> reader can understand exactly what's going on, as it also exactly >> >> matches the declaration. >> >> >> >> Are you with me so far? >> >> BB: >> > No, that just alters my question. If that is what you are doing, I >> > would to ask why you want a pointer to an array in the first place. > > You misquoted what Ben said. You significantly changed the > meaning of what he said. You misrepresented his actual words > to say something that blatantly contradicts his actual opinion, > and you put it in quotation marks, implying that you were directly > quoting his exact words. I posted the actual words but I can't see much difference in meaning. It was clear from the context of that thread that Ben couldn't see the point of my array pointers. "why you want a pointer to an array in the first place" was in reply to "someone wants a 'pointer to array of T'". That doesn't leave much room for alternative interpretations. I said I was gobsmacked by the comment at time and I would be now too. Although today's revelations come close. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 13:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <lnwpggs257.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95981 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 06/11/2016 20:59, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 06/11/2016 11:02, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>> (And actually, I found your attitude so astonishing at one time that I
>>>>> was lost for words. "Why would you ever need a pointer to an array?"!)
>>>>
>>>> That looks like a quote, but it does not look like something I'd say.
>>>> Where did i say it?
>>>
>>> (clc 19th August 2016)
>>>
>>> BC:
>>> >> Someone wants a 'pointer to array to T', they declare 'pointer to
>>> >> array of T', and access it by dereferencing the 'pointer' part and
>>> >> indexing the 'array' part. That sounds perfectly reasonable. And the
>>> >> reader can understand exactly what's going on, as it also exactly
>>> >> matches the declaration.
>>> >>
>>> >> Are you with me so far?
>>>
>>> BB:
>>> > No, that just alters my question. If that is what you are doing, I
>>> > would to ask why you want a pointer to an array in the first place.
>>
>> You misquoted what Ben said. You significantly changed the
>> meaning of what he said. You misrepresented his actual words
>> to say something that blatantly contradicts his actual opinion,
>> and you put it in quotation marks, implying that you were directly
>> quoting his exact words.
>
> I posted the actual words but I can't see much difference in meaning. It
> was clear from the context of that thread that Ben couldn't see the
> point of my array pointers.
No, you posted an altered quotation. You added the word "ever",
which drastically changed Ben's meaning.
Ben couldn't see the point of *your* array pointers. You falsely
claimed that he couldn't see the point of *any* array pointers.
You might wrongly think that there's no significant difference,
but Ben has clearly stated that he does.
It was difficult enough to take you seriously before this.
You're making it even more difficult.
Will you at least acknowledge that the question you posted, in
quotation marks, is not something that Ben actually wrote in those
exact words?
--
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 | 2016-11-06 22:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <nvo968$lc5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95984 |
On 06/11/2016 21:56, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> I posted the actual words but I can't see much difference in meaning. It >> was clear from the context of that thread that Ben couldn't see the >> point of my array pointers. > > No, you posted an altered quotation. You added the word "ever", > which drastically changed Ben's meaning. > > Ben couldn't see the point of *your* array pointers. What other kind are there apart from 'pointer to array of T'? Or do you mean if the proposal came from someone else other than me? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 14:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <lnk2cgs0fi.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95986 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 06/11/2016 21:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> I posted the actual words but I can't see much difference in meaning. It
>>> was clear from the context of that thread that Ben couldn't see the
>>> point of my array pointers.
>>
>> No, you posted an altered quotation. You added the word "ever",
>> which drastically changed Ben's meaning.
>>
>> Ben couldn't see the point of *your* array pointers.
>
> What other kind are there apart from 'pointer to array of T'?
>
> Or do you mean if the proposal came from someone else other than me?
You posted an altered quotation. Your insertion of the word "ever"
altered the meaning of what Ben said. This isn't about what *kind* of
array pointers, it's about the context in which they're used.
Stop making excuses.
--
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 | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 14:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <lnoa1ss1m4.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95984 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
> No, you posted an altered quotation. You added the word "ever",
> which drastically changed Ben's meaning.
>
> Ben couldn't see the point of *your* array pointers. You falsely
> claimed that he couldn't see the point of *any* array pointers.
>
> You might wrongly think that there's no significant difference,
> but Ben has clearly stated that he does.
That was poorly phrased. I should have written that Ben has clearly
stated that he thinks there is a significant difference.
[...]
--
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 | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 22:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <8737j4b5oj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #95981 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 06/11/2016 20:59, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 06/11/2016 11:02, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>> (And actually, I found your attitude so astonishing at one time that I
>>>>> was lost for words. "Why would you ever need a pointer to an array?"!)
>>>>
>>>> That looks like a quote, but it does not look like something I'd say.
>>>> Where did i say it?
>>>
>>> (clc 19th August 2016)
>>>
>>> BC:
>>> >> Someone wants a 'pointer to array to T', they declare 'pointer to
>>> >> array of T', and access it by dereferencing the 'pointer' part and
>>> >> indexing the 'array' part. That sounds perfectly reasonable. And the
>>> >> reader can understand exactly what's going on, as it also exactly
>>> >> matches the declaration.
>>> >>
>>> >> Are you with me so far?
>>>
>>> BB:
>>> > No, that just alters my question. If that is what you are doing, I
>>> > would to ask why you want a pointer to an array in the first place.
>>
>> You misquoted what Ben said. You significantly changed the
>> meaning of what he said. You misrepresented his actual words
>> to say something that blatantly contradicts his actual opinion,
>> and you put it in quotation marks, implying that you were directly
>> quoting his exact words.
>
> I posted the actual words but I can't see much difference in
> meaning. It was clear from the context of that thread that Ben
> couldn't see the point of my array pointers.
>
> "why you want a pointer to an array in the first place" was in reply
> to "someone wants a 'pointer to array of T'". That doesn't leave much
> room for alternative interpretations.
That's often the case with selective quotations. Frankly, I'm getting
sick of your behaviour. I wanted to draw this discussion to a close,
but you keep lying about what I said.
The exchange was about this code of yours:
| int main(void){
| int (*A)[]; // pointer to (unbounded) array of int
| #define N 1000
| int i;
|
| A = malloc(N*sizeof(int));
|
| for (i=0; i<1000; ++i)
| (*A)[i] = i*7;
|
| for (i=0; i<1000; ++i)
| printf("%d %d\n",i,(*A)[i]);
|
| }
which caused me to ask:
: I can't see why you would do it this way. It seems to offer no
: advantages over the usual method, and involves slightly more complex
: declarations and expressions. Am I missing something?
You:
| Because it is the NATURAL way of creating such data structures.
|
| Someone wants a 'pointer to array to T', they declare 'pointer to
| array of T', and access it by dereferencing the 'pointer' part and
| indexing the 'array' part. That sounds perfectly reasonable. And the
| reader can understand exactly what's going on, as it also exactly
| matches the declaration.
me:
: If that is what you are doing, I would to ask why you want a pointer to
: an array in the first place. If your answer is that you you are
: translating (either automatically or by hand) from a language with
: Pascal-like pointers, then it is disingenuous to claim you using C
: "naturally".
I don't post this persuade you, just to let anyone else who cares decide
for themselves.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 23:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <nvocl1$175$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95992 |
On 06/11/2016 22:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> "why you want a pointer to an array in the first place" was in reply
>> to "someone wants a 'pointer to array of T'". That doesn't leave much
>> room for alternative interpretations.
>
> That's often the case with selective quotations. Frankly, I'm getting
> sick of your behaviour. I wanted to draw this discussion to a close,
> but you keep lying about what I said.
>
> The exchange was about this code of yours:
>
> | int main(void){
> | int (*A)[]; // pointer to (unbounded) array of int
> | #define N 1000
> | int i;
> |
> | A = malloc(N*sizeof(int));
> |
> | for (i=0; i<1000; ++i)
> | (*A)[i] = i*7;
> |
> | for (i=0; i<1000; ++i)
> | printf("%d %d\n",i,(*A)[i]);
> |
> | }
[This code was tangential to the thread and was posted when BB seemed to
be dubious about the use of pointers to unbounded arrays in C; BB:"Are
we still talking about C? How do you use it?" (copy & pasted this time).]
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 01:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <87fun49k59.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #95998 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 06/11/2016 22:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> "why you want a pointer to an array in the first place" was in reply
>>> to "someone wants a 'pointer to array of T'". That doesn't leave much
>>> room for alternative interpretations.
>>
>> That's often the case with selective quotations. Frankly, I'm getting
>> sick of your behaviour. I wanted to draw this discussion to a close,
>> but you keep lying about what I said.
>>
>> The exchange was about this code of yours:
>>
>> | int main(void){
>> | int (*A)[]; // pointer to (unbounded) array of int
>> | #define N 1000
>> | int i;
>> |
>> | A = malloc(N*sizeof(int));
>> |
>> | for (i=0; i<1000; ++i)
>> | (*A)[i] = i*7;
>> |
>> | for (i=0; i<1000; ++i)
>> | printf("%d %d\n",i,(*A)[i]);
>> |
>> | }
>
> [This code was tangential to the thread and was posted when BB seemed
> to be dubious about the use of pointers to unbounded arrays in C;
Nonsense. Only two posts separate this code and the quote you used to
try to justify your recent made-up "quote". I asked what advantage this
use of pointers has, you replied (essentially saying that it was
natural) and that caused me to say "If that is what you are doing, I
would to ask why you want a pointer to an array in the first place". If
you did not think I was talking about this code and this example, I
can't imagine what you thought the "if that is what you are doing" was
about.
> BB:"Are we still talking about C? How do you use it?" (copy & pasted
> this time).]
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web