Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60841 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 432 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 10:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:25 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:35 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 07:52 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:15 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:44 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-24 13:01 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 04:16 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-24 04:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 16:07 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-25 22:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 14:29 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-26 15:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:43 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-04-23 09:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:03 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:53 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:37 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:12 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:46 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 08:47 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Fred K <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 07:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 16:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 01:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 10:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 18:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 23:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 08:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-26 12:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-28 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-09 13:14 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 08:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-10 12:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-05-10 13:22 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 18:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 11:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 08:24 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 21:15 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 19:40 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-13 21:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 23:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-14 00:19 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 04:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 04:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-14 11:34 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:24 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-17 10:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 13:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 09:51 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 05:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 01:31 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-13 21:05 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 00:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 02:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 05:02 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-15 13:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-16 02:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:13 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:36 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 12:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 14:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 13:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 14:20 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:51 +0100
I'm starting a new thread (Was: Spurious diagnostic messages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 11:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 18:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 00:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-21 12:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 13:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-22 09:11 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:15 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 12:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:26 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 14:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 09:28 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-22 21:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:36 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 14:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:38 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 18:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 23:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-22 18:28 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 16:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 16:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 00:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 23:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:10 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:42 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 20:25 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 07:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 18:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages "Bartc" <bartc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-01 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 11:48 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 18:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 13:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 21:07 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 23:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 15:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-24 22:45 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-25 18:59 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-25 20:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-31 13:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-25 12:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:11 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 11:26 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-26 22:02 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-26 14:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 16:58 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-26 16:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 08:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 20:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 08:47 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 20:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 16:54 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-31 01:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 06:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 16:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:36 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-31 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-01 08:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:08 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:15 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:24 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-30 13:30 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:12 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:36 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 18:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-26 11:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-26 15:35 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 00:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 00:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 13:43 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 00:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:16 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 12:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:42 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 09:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-24 22:22 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-01 20:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 18:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 14:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tonton Th <tTh@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-08-01 22:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-02 09:02 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 14:23 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 12:10 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:01 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:16 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-03 14:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 10:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 16:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 12:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 13:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 13:37 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 13:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:34 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 11:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 10:47 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:33 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 10:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-06 22:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:44 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 10:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 13:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 14:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-20 21:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:17 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:15 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 11:46 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-23 17:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:49 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 15:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 22:51 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-23 22:50 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-23 23:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 00:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 02:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 07:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 14:24 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 09:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 15:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-24 13:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 19:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-25 00:51 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 02:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 13:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 15:55 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 18:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-29 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-26 13:27 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 21:09 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 00:03 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 00:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 01:15 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 13:34 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 14:07 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 21:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-28 17:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 10:36 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 16:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 16:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:39 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 22:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 21:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-10 18:08 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-11 15:02 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 14:08 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-21 13:27 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 15:30 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 10:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 14:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 20:16 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 09:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 22:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 10:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-28 06:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 10:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 10:32 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 17:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-28 15:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 15:03 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-28 14:35 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 16:54 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-29 10:17 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 10:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 21:16 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 20:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 02:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-28 03:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 22:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 22:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:52 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 12:11 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 10:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 14:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 22:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 17:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:34 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 14:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> - 2015-05-29 15:28 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-29 15:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 16:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-17 15:46 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 11:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-18 08:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:09 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:03 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 14:41 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:39 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 13:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 19:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-14 09:54 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-14 08:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-14 14:37 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-15 16:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:44 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 06:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> - 2015-04-29 04:07 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 09:33 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700
Page 12 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 22 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7fpciegq.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66744 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:01:02 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
>>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> As I mentioned earlier, if binary literals are added to C, I think
>>>> support should also be added to printf and scanf, probably using
>>>> "%b". If this happens, C++ will eventually incorporate that feature
>>>> as part of the C standard library. I suspect that would pressure
>>>> the C++ committee to add similar support to <iostream>.
>>>
>>> I disagree. There's little requirement to input and output binary
>>> items. Binary literals in a program, OTOH, are quite useful in some
>>> circumstances.
>>
>> We have decimal, octal, and hexadecimal constants, input, and output.
>> Having decimal, octal, hexadecimal, and binary constants, but only
>> decimal, octal, and hexadecimal input and output would be inconsistent.
>
> But that doesn't detract from the utility of binary constants.
Agreed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
> As I
> said elsewhere, the use case for binary constants is primarily in the
> embedded world, stdio isn't a concern.
For freestanding implementations, stdio is not required, so adding
I/O for binary numbers to the standard would not be a burden.
For embedded systems that support something like printf, I/O for
binary numbers could be useful for debugging.
--
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 | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 08:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ec5gtahgpb649iu1jk941comrtv2buf1hc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #66744 |
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:15:47 +1200, Ian Collins wrote: >Keith Thompson wrote: >> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: >>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:01:02 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> >>> wrote: >> [...] >>>> As I mentioned earlier, if binary literals are added to C, I think >>>> support should also be added to printf and scanf, probably using >>>> "%b". If this happens, C++ will eventually incorporate that feature >>>> as part of the C standard library. I suspect that would pressure >>>> the C++ committee to add similar support to <iostream>. >>> >>> I disagree. There's little requirement to input and output binary >>> items. Binary literals in a program, OTOH, are quite useful in some >>> circumstances. >> >> We have decimal, octal, and hexadecimal constants, input, and output. >> Having decimal, octal, hexadecimal, and binary constants, but only >> decimal, octal, and hexadecimal input and output would be inconsistent. > >But that doesn't detract from the utility of binary constants. As I >said elsewhere, the use case for binary constants is primarily in the >embedded world, stdio isn't a concern. bin can be replaced better with hex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 19:24 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d3qme6Fed1gU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67984 |
Rosario19 wrote: > On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:15:47 +1200, Ian Collins wrote: >> Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: >>>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:01:02 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> >>>> wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> As I mentioned earlier, if binary literals are added to C, I think >>>>> support should also be added to printf and scanf, probably using >>>>> "%b". If this happens, C++ will eventually incorporate that feature >>>>> as part of the C standard library. I suspect that would pressure >>>>> the C++ committee to add similar support to <iostream>. >>>> >>>> I disagree. There's little requirement to input and output binary >>>> items. Binary literals in a program, OTOH, are quite useful in some >>>> circumstances. >>> >>> We have decimal, octal, and hexadecimal constants, input, and output. >>> Having decimal, octal, hexadecimal, and binary constants, but only >>> decimal, octal, and hexadecimal input and output would be inconsistent. >> >> But that doesn't detract from the utility of binary constants. As I >> said elsewhere, the use case for binary constants is primarily in the >> embedded world, stdio isn't a concern. > > bin can be replaced better with hex No, it can't when the original data is represented in binary. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 11:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnpp2cy38e.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66744 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > Keith Thompson wrote: >> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: >>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:01:02 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> >>> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> As I mentioned earlier, if binary literals are added to C, I think >>>> support should also be added to printf and scanf, probably using >>>> "%b". If this happens, C++ will eventually incorporate that feature >>>> as part of the C standard library. I suspect that would pressure >>>> the C++ committee to add similar support to <iostream>. >>> >>> I disagree. There's little requirement to input and output binary >>> items. Binary literals in a program, OTOH, are quite useful in some >>> circumstances. >> >> We have decimal, octal, and hexadecimal constants, input, and output. >> Having decimal, octal, hexadecimal, and binary constants, but only >> decimal, octal, and hexadecimal input and output would be inconsistent. > > But that doesn't detract from the utility of binary constants. As I > said elsewhere, the use case for binary constants is primarily in the > embedded world, stdio isn't a concern. And that's why it should be rejected. Any language feature like this one, that provides no capability beyond what is fairly easily available otherwise, if not considered important to/by the entire C development community, is not important enough to add to the language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 20:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mrfq9b$v9q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68250 |
On 24/08/2015 19:02, Tim Rentsch wrote: > And that's why it should be rejected. Any language feature like > this one, that provides no capability beyond what is fairly > easily available otherwise, if not considered important to/by > the entire C development community, is not important enough > to add to the language. So opinions do count, provided enough people share them? OK. And a language should have *NO* features that could be possible be achieved by any other means. OK again (although I would love to see such a language, as well as the one put together by unanimous votes in the programming community.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 13:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55e3052a.1258140@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #68256 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 24/08/2015 19:02, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > > And that's why it should be rejected. Any language feature like > > this one, that provides no capability beyond what is fairly > > easily available otherwise, if not considered important to/by > > the entire C development community, is not important enough > > to add to the language. > > So opinions do count, provided enough people share them? OK. Tsk. Provided people called Tim share them, of course. > And a language should have *NO* features that could be possible be > achieved by any other means. OK again (although I would love to see such > a language, as well as the one put together by unanimous votes in the > programming community.) The former is easy to find: start at Brainfuck and work your way down. The latter is not going to happen in a year of Sundays. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 08:12 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d41c4gFmnsqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68250 |
Tim Rentsch wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >> Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: >>>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:01:02 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> As I mentioned earlier, if binary literals are added to C, I think >>>>> support should also be added to printf and scanf, probably using >>>>> "%b". If this happens, C++ will eventually incorporate that feature >>>>> as part of the C standard library. I suspect that would pressure >>>>> the C++ committee to add similar support to <iostream>. >>>> >>>> I disagree. There's little requirement to input and output binary >>>> items. Binary literals in a program, OTOH, are quite useful in some >>>> circumstances. >>> >>> We have decimal, octal, and hexadecimal constants, input, and output. >>> Having decimal, octal, hexadecimal, and binary constants, but only >>> decimal, octal, and hexadecimal input and output would be inconsistent. >> >> But that doesn't detract from the utility of binary constants. As I >> said elsewhere, the use case for binary constants is primarily in the >> embedded world, stdio isn't a concern. > > And that's why it should be rejected. Any language feature like > this one, that provides no capability beyond what is fairly > easily available otherwise, if not considered important to/by > the entire C development community, is not important enough > to add to the language. So all of the the maths stuff added to C99 was "considered important to/by the entire C development community"? I've yet to meet anyone who would agree with that. Look outside of your little box sometime and see what most C programmers are doing: embedded code. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 16:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sk3trahk6gu55hr2oo4a93jfcp50i7ilic@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #66741 |
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 14:29:53 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:
>Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:01:02 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
>> wrote:
>[...]
>>>As I mentioned earlier, if binary literals are added to C, I think
>>>support should also be added to printf and scanf, probably using
>>>"%b". If this happens, C++ will eventually incorporate that feature
>>>as part of the C standard library. I suspect that would pressure
>>>the C++ committee to add similar support to <iostream>.
>>
>> I disagree. There's little requirement to input and output binary
>> items. Binary literals in a program, OTOH, are quite useful in some
>> circumstances.
>
>We have decimal, octal, and hexadecimal constants, input, and output.
>Having decimal, octal, hexadecimal, and binary constants, but only
>decimal, octal, and hexadecimal input and output would be inconsistent.
Would quoting Emerson be rude? ;-)
More seriously, the need for binary input and output is sufficiently
rare that I can't see any problem in omitting it, particularly if it's
getting in the way of an actual useful feature, like binary literals.
Not that C is all that consistent anyway. Why can't you apply ++ to a
complex number, for example? And if you have a reason, why doesn't it
apply to floats as well?
>> OTOH, if you wanted to add binary to printf, in additional to the
>> existing octal and hex output, it's not a big deal, presumably would
>> not hurt anything (leaving aside just which escape sequence to use -
>> as has been pointed out "b" is taken), I just see little point.
>
>"b" isn't taken. What are you referring to?
Sorry, brain fade on my part, binary character constants would have an
issue with \b.
>> As for the input functions, I also don't *personally* care too much,
>> since they're all pretty fundamentally broken anyway. Just the fact
>> that they *do* allow hex and octal input (for integers), pretty much
>> results in a mismatch with 99% of input specifications out there,
>> except for some where the use of those was introduced as an accident
>> (or bad decision), and we're stuck with it (the components of IPv4
>> addresses, for example). The error handling on the scanf functions
>> also largely precludes their use. Some of the strto* functions are
>> fairly usable, although if the input is base-16 they can still be a
>> problem (and the strto* functions already support binary input).
>
>The fact that scanf() has undefined behavior on numeric overflow is a
>real problem.
The error handling in general is horrible. Or more precisely
non-existent. But I had forgotten that actual overflow behavior is
undefined. So exactly how is scanf better than gets()?
>What's the problem with strto* and base 16?
If you specify 16 as the base it will accept input with or without a
leading 0x, unlike any other base where it will accept only a number
without a prefix.
>> But
>> adding binary support to the (other) input functions would likely
>> break things, no matter my opinion of the usefulness of those
>> functions.
>>
>> IOW, the C++ addition got it just right.
>
>There is a small incompatibility. Currently this:
>
> sscanf("0b11001001", "%i", &n);
>
>succeeds and sets n to 0; the 'b' and everything after it is ignored.
>With the proposed change, it would consume the entire string and set n
>to 201. I don't think that's a serious problem.
Well it *is* a change, and might actually break some existing program.
Breaking existing code is not forbidden by the standards process, of
course, but it opens a good sized can of worms. Keeping this at just
literals avoids that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln3800idt5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66749 |
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 14:29:53 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:01:02 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
>>> wrote:
>>[...]
>>>>As I mentioned earlier, if binary literals are added to C, I think
>>>>support should also be added to printf and scanf, probably using
>>>>"%b". If this happens, C++ will eventually incorporate that feature
>>>>as part of the C standard library. I suspect that would pressure
>>>>the C++ committee to add similar support to <iostream>.
>>>
>>> I disagree. There's little requirement to input and output binary
>>> items. Binary literals in a program, OTOH, are quite useful in some
>>> circumstances.
>>
>>We have decimal, octal, and hexadecimal constants, input, and output.
>>Having decimal, octal, hexadecimal, and binary constants, but only
>>decimal, octal, and hexadecimal input and output would be inconsistent.
>
> Would quoting Emerson be rude? ;-)
Not at all. Nor would quoting Whitman:
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am
large, I contain multitudes.
> More seriously, the need for binary input and output is sufficiently
> rare that I can't see any problem in omitting it, particularly if it's
> getting in the way of an actual useful feature, like binary literals.
> Not that C is all that consistent anyway. Why can't you apply ++ to a
> complex number, for example? And if you have a reason, why doesn't it
> apply to floats as well?
Binary I/O isn't a huge deal, and I wouldn't whine *too* much if it were
omitted. But I don't think existing inconsistences (of which there are
many) are a strong argument in favor of adding another one.
Binary I/O would be a minor burden on implementers. I agree that binary
literals without binary I/O would be better than nothing. But I don't
think it would actually get in the way of adding binary literals.
I can see myself trying to explain why printf supports octal but not
binary, and not being able to come up with a very good answer.
[...]
>>"b" isn't taken. What are you referring to?
>
> Sorry, brain fade on my part, binary character constants would have an
> issue with \b.
Right. I don't see any great need for binary character constants; the
fact that '\b' is already taken is enough justification to omit them.
[...]
>>The fact that scanf() has undefined behavior on numeric overflow is a
>>real problem.
>
> The error handling in general is horrible. Or more precisely
> non-existent. But I had forgotten that actual overflow behavior is
> undefined. So exactly how is scanf better than gets()?
scanf(), unlike gets(), *can* be used safely if you choose the format
string carefully.
>>What's the problem with strto* and base 16?
>
> If you specify 16 as the base it will accept input with or without a
> leading 0x, unlike any other base where it will accept only a number
> without a prefix.
Ok. So what's the problem? Would quoting Emerson be rude? 8-)}
[...]
--
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 | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <780eff69-ddde-4335-aca3-e2fac1314cb5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #66789 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 8:30:38 AM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote: > > I can see myself trying to explain why printf supports octal but not > binary, and not being able to come up with a very good answer. I favor "historical accident".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 18:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnh9ofhlu9.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66822 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 8:30:38 AM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> I can see myself trying to explain why printf supports octal but not
>> binary, and not being able to come up with a very good answer.
>
> I favor "historical accident".
Yes -- and I'd prefer not to make another one.
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 11:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnlhd0y33x.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66749 |
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 14:29:53 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:01:02 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
>>> wrote:
[snip]
>>> adding binary support to the (other) input functions would likely
>>> break things, no matter my opinion of the usefulness of those
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> IOW, the C++ addition got it just right.
>>
>> There is a small incompatibility. Currently this:
>>
>> sscanf("0b11001001", "%i", &n);
>>
>> succeeds and sets n to 0; the 'b' and everything after it is ignored.
>> With the proposed change, it would consume the entire string and set n
>> to 201. I don't think that's a serious problem.
>
> Well it *is* a change, and might actually break some existing program.
> Breaking existing code is not forbidden by the standards process, of
> course, but it opens a good sized can of worms. Keeping this at just
> literals avoids that.
Not adding them at all avoids the problem altogether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 11:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mp2bgi$d84$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66391 |
On 26/07/2015 04:17, Tim Rentsch wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> The reality is that datasheets will use binary, decimal or >> hexadecimal as appropriate - with register fields being usually >> either binary or hexadecimal. (Octal is almost never used. I can >> only remember seeing it in the context of an ASCII character set >> on a small display, and that was a decade or two ago.) > > If you have facts and evidence to present, by all means present > them. Sweeping generalizations are meaningless. This is now getting ridiculous. Anyone else I would suspect of trolling. Binary /is/ used in computing, not extensively, but enough that a correspondingly minor addition to a language is not worth arguing over. And it's a /very/ minor change. (Google for something like '8086 datasheet' or for '80188 data sheet' (actual links were too long to include), eg. the original data sheets of 30 or so pages. Look at the instruction set summaries starting on page 26 or 27. They are full of binary! I have actually used these data sheets (to put together assemblers, disassemblers, code generators and so on). I used binary constants in source code so that I could easily double-check them against the data sheets.) > Have you, or has anyone > for that matter, even made an effort to estimate the marginal > utility in programmer time or program development cost? What is the programmer cost of *not* using the feature? It's got to be practically zero, surely? Because no-one is obliged to use it. As for the costs of actually implementing it per compiler, well you can probably estimate that for yourself. FYI, in the case of gcc, Clang, DMC, lccwin, and Tiny C, it's zero because it's already done. >> So please just accept the reality that 0b binary constants are a >> useful feature, and would be a worthwhile addition to the C >> standards that would be welcomed by many embedded programmers, and >> happily ignored by most non-embedded programmers. > > If it's so important to you for binary constants to be added to > C, why don't you put in the effort of doing a serious > costs/benefits investigation, considering all the ramifications, > rather than just huffing and puffing? Because people would spend longer arguing about it than just doing it? 99% of the costs would consist of squabbling about the feature! > When considering new > language features to be added to C, the burden of proof is > generally understood to be on those proposing the change. How exactly do you go about evaluating the usefulness of such a feature? That would far more difficult, longer and more costly exercise than just adding it! That's why this debate is ridiculous. (You don't work in the public sector, by any chance? This is the sort of thing they like doing. With other people's money.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 15:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7fpmy2bn.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66401 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> What is the programmer cost of *not* using the feature? It's got to be
> practically zero, surely? Because no-one is obliged to use it. As for
> the costs of actually implementing it per compiler, well you can
> probably estimate that for yourself.
>
> FYI, in the case of gcc, Clang, DMC, lccwin, and Tiny C, it's zero
> because it's already done.
(The feature in question is binary literals, like the 0b11001001
currently supported as an extension by gcc and some other C compilers.
Personally, I favor adding them to the language, but there's at least
one more question to answer. Currently printf and scanf support
integer I/O for octal, decimal, and hexadecimal. Should they also
support binary? "%b" is not currently used, so that would be the
obvious solution. A "#" flag could cause printf to print the "0b"
or "0B" prefix; "%#b" could print a "0b" suffix, "%#B" could print a
"0B" prefix, and "%b" and "%B" would be identical (unlike "%x" and
"%X").
It's not an overwhelming burden but it is a little extra work.
Interestingly, glibc's printf and scanf don't support binary -- but
Perl's printf function does.
Using "%b" for printf and scanf might break some other existing
functions that use extended format strings.
--
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 | 2015-07-27 00:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mp3pmp$hue$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66424 |
On 26/07/2015 23:35, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> What is the programmer cost of *not* using the feature? It's got to be >> practically zero, surely? Because no-one is obliged to use it. As for >> the costs of actually implementing it per compiler, well you can >> probably estimate that for yourself. >> >> FYI, in the case of gcc, Clang, DMC, lccwin, and Tiny C, it's zero >> because it's already done. > > (The feature in question is binary literals, like the 0b11001001 > currently supported as an extension by gcc and some other C compilers. > > Personally, I favor adding them to the language, but there's at least > one more question to answer. Currently printf and scanf support > integer I/O for octal, decimal, and hexadecimal. Should they also > support binary? It would be nice, but there's less need for that, as it can be accomplished via a function. Using functions and macros to stand in for binary literals is less satisfactory (imagine needing to use them for hex literals, but it's possible to envisage calling a function to convert a number to a hex string). "%b" is not currently used, so that would be the > obvious solution. %b is supported by lccwin and by Digital Mars C (which was a surprise as it's pretty old). > A "#" flag could cause printf to print the "0b" > or "0B" prefix; "%#b" could print a "0b" suffix, "%#B" could print a > "0B" prefix, and "%b" and "%B" would be identical (unlike "%x" and > "%X"). Not sure about the need for this: is it too much work to write 0B%B? (What might be a nice touch though is to be able to specify characters to replace 0s and 1s in the output. But it's an awkward fit into the format syntax. Actually, now that I've thought of it, I've just tried it on one of my own routines, and it looks pretty neat! But even I can see it doesn't really belong in the core language.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 00:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mp3ve4$prm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #66428 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 26/07/2015 23:35, Keith Thompson wrote: (snip) >> (The feature in question is binary literals, like the 0b11001001 >> currently supported as an extension by gcc and some other C compilers. >> Personally, I favor adding them to the language, but there's at least >> one more question to answer. Currently printf and scanf support >> integer I/O for octal, decimal, and hexadecimal. Should they also >> support binary? Seems to me more important. Constants could be done before compilation, in whatever is the favorite method by the programmer. One could even comment them with the appopriate binary representation (which, of course, could differ from the converted form). > It would be nice, but there's less need for that, as it can be > accomplished via a function. Decimal, octal, and hex could also be done by function call, but it is more convenient in printf and scanf. (snip) >> "%b" is not currently used, so that would be the >> obvious solution. > %b is supported by lccwin and by Digital Mars C (which was a surprise as > it's pretty old). >> A "#" flag could cause printf to print the "0b" >> or "0B" prefix; "%#b" could print a "0b" suffix, "%#B" could print a >> "0B" prefix, and "%b" and "%B" would be identical (unlike "%x" and >> "%X"). Does this # flag exist for %x and %o? > Not sure about the need for this: is it too much work to write 0B%B? I agree. > (What might be a nice touch though is to be able to specify characters > to replace 0s and 1s in the output. But it's an awkward fit into the > format syntax. Actually, now that I've thought of it, I've just tried it > on one of my own routines, and it looks pretty neat! But even I can see > it doesn't really belong in the core language.) Since '0' and '1' are only one apart, at least in the codes that I know, it isn't so hard to convert to any other character pair. It could be interesting to have F and T, or L and H. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnvbd5wrub.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66433 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 26/07/2015 23:35, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>>> "%b" is not currently used, so that would be the
>>> obvious solution.
>
>> %b is supported by lccwin and by Digital Mars C (which was a surprise as
>> it's pretty old).
>
>>> A "#" flag could cause printf to print the "0b"
>>> or "0B" prefix; "%#b" could print a "0b" suffix, "%#B" could print a
>>> "0B" prefix, and "%b" and "%B" would be identical (unlike "%x" and
>>> "%X").
>
> Does this # flag exist for %x and %o?
Yes. "%#x" adds a "0x" prefix, and "%#o" adds a "0" prefix if it's
not already there.
I generally don't use the "#" flag myself; I find "0x%x" clearer. But
it's in the standard, and conforming implementations must support it.
If "%b" were added, not supporting "%#b" would be gratuitously
inconsistent. And there's precedent for it; Perl's printf and sprintf
functions support "%b" and"%#b".
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnbneraq9d.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66401 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 26/07/2015 04:17, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>
>>> The reality is that datasheets will use binary, decimal or
>>> hexadecimal as appropriate - with register fields being usually
>>> either binary or hexadecimal. (Octal is almost never used. I can
>>> only remember seeing it in the context of an ASCII character set
>>> on a small display, and that was a decade or two ago.)
>>
>> If you have facts and evidence to present, by all means present
>> them. Sweeping generalizations are meaningless.
>
> This is now getting ridiculous. Anyone else I would suspect of
> trolling.
>
> Binary /is/ used in computing, not extensively, but enough that a
> correspondingly minor addition to a language is not worth arguing
> over. And it's a /very/ minor change.
>
> (Google for something like '8086 datasheet' or for '80188 data
> sheet' (actual links were too long to include), eg. the original
> data sheets of 30 or so pages. Look at the instruction set
> summaries starting on page 26 or 27. They are full of binary!
I did download a .pdf that seems to be an 8086 datasheet, with
30 pages, the last four of which look like instruction or opcode
listings. Those listings did use 0's and 1's (not really binary
constants as such, but close enough), for the opcode fields, with
lengths of eight bits or less.
If I were writing a C program that needed to include these values,
I expect I would write it something like this:
enum I808_opcodes {
I8086_AAS = B2( 00111111 ), /* ASCII Adjust for Subtract */
I8086_DAS = B2( 00101111 ), /* Decimal Adjust for Subtract */
/* ... etc ... */
I8086_limit = B2( 11111111 )
};
where B2() is a macro for producing a constant expressed in
binary. Writing this macro took about ten minutes. (The code
shown above is actual code, compiling cleanly in C90 and C99 (and
presumably C11, although I didn't test that).) IMO this is a
better solution than using a new form of integer constant, both
because it works now and because it works with older versions
of C that don't support binary constants.
> I have actually used these data sheets (to put together
> assemblers, disassemblers, code generators and so on). I used
> binary constants in source code so that I could easily
> double-check them against the data sheets.)
>
>> Have you, or has anyone
>> for that matter, even made an effort to estimate the marginal
>> utility in programmer time or program development cost?
>
> What is the programmer cost of *not* using the feature? It's got
> to be practically zero, surely? Because no-one is obliged to use
> it.
I think you have missed the point of the question. What I'm
asking is how much development cost would be saved if the new
feature were available, in cases that might make use of it,
compared to the development costs in those cases if the new
feature were not available. Given the ease with which other
approaches may be used, eg, the B2() macro, it looks like
the marginal utility is pretty low. Are there other use
cases you would like to mention?
> As for the costs of actually implementing it per compiler,
> well you can probably estimate that for yourself.
>
> FYI, in the case of gcc, Clang, DMC, lccwin, and Tiny C, it's
> zero because it's already done.
As I think I have mentioned the collateral costs are what
is significant here, not just the compiler changes.
>>> So please just accept the reality that 0b binary constants are a
>>> useful feature, and would be a worthwhile addition to the C
>>> standards that would be welcomed by many embedded programmers,
>>> and happily ignored by most non-embedded programmers.
>>
>> If it's so important to you for binary constants to be added to
>> C, why don't you put in the effort of doing a serious
>> costs/benefits investigation, considering all the ramifications,
>> rather than just huffing and puffing?
>
> Because people would spend longer arguing about it than just doing
> it? 99% of the costs would consist of squabbling about the
> feature!
If you want to get something added to ISO C, the WG14 vetting
process is just a fact of life (and a useful one IMO, but a
fact of life nonetheless).
>> When considering new
>> language features to be added to C, the burden of proof is
>> generally understood to be on those proposing the change.
>
> How exactly do you go about evaluating the usefulness of such a
> feature?
The important thing is to go through the exercise of trying to
consider what all the different considerations are and make some
sort of fact/evidence based guess or estimate of what the costs
and benefits will be. It's like what Eisenhower said about
planning - "The plan is nothing, the planning is everything."
> That would far more difficult, longer and more costly
> exercise than just adding it! That's why this debate is
> ridiculous. (You don't work in the public sector, by any chance?
> This is the sort of thing they like doing. With other people's
> money.)
ISTM that you are the one who is willing to spend other
people's time, for a feature that seems to have little value,
just because you want it. My position is that these other
people's time should _not_ be spent, for something that
provides so little value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr3nmkady.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66642 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
[...]
> If I were writing a C program that needed to include these values,
> I expect I would write it something like this:
>
> enum I808_opcodes {
> I8086_AAS = B2( 00111111 ), /* ASCII Adjust for Subtract */
> I8086_DAS = B2( 00101111 ), /* Decimal Adjust for Subtract */
> /* ... etc ... */
> I8086_limit = B2( 11111111 )
> };
>
> where B2() is a macro for producing a constant expressed in
> binary. Writing this macro took about ten minutes. (The code
> shown above is actual code, compiling cleanly in C90 and C99 (and
> presumably C11, although I didn't test that).) IMO this is a
> better solution than using a new form of integer constant, both
> because it works now and because it works with older versions
> of C that don't support binary constants.
I'd be interested in seeing that macro.
I came up with a version that stringifies its argument (requiring
exactly 8 binary digits), but it doesn't expand to a constant
expression.
If you treat the argument as an integer constant, you have to handle
both decimal and octal constants, and B2(0111111) != B2(111111).
[...]
--
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 | 2015-08-02 00:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r3nm8vau.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #66649 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> [...]
>> If I were writing a C program that needed to include these values,
>> I expect I would write it something like this:
>>
>> enum I808_opcodes {
>> I8086_AAS = B2( 00111111 ), /* ASCII Adjust for Subtract */
>> I8086_DAS = B2( 00101111 ), /* Decimal Adjust for Subtract */
>> /* ... etc ... */
>> I8086_limit = B2( 11111111 )
>> };
>>
>> where B2() is a macro for producing a constant expressed in
>> binary.
<snip>
> I'd be interested in seeing that macro.
Maybe:
#define B2(digits) B(0x##digits)
#define bit(v, d) (((v) & (1 << 4*(d))) >> 3*(d))
#define B(h) (bit(h, 0) | bit(h, 1) | bit(h, 2) | bit(h, 3) | \
bit(h, 4) | bit(h, 5) | bit(h, 6) | bit(h, 7))
though I'm sure there's some nicer bit-twiddling way to go from 0/1 hex
to binary.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web