Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
GCC vs Clang The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> - 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-07-22 20:17 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 21:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:22 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:20 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:56 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-22 15:27 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 00:59 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 20:33 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:18 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 12:54 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 13:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 22:54 +0200
Killfiles: Learn how they work. They are your friend! (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-07-23 21:14 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 05:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 15:43 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 07:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 22:08 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:21 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 14:38 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 09:30 -0500
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:41 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:33 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 07:46 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:02 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:25 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2016-07-22 20:42 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:50 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-23 19:53 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:50 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:07 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 17:16 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 07:27 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 08:29 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:29 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:44 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 22:18 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:43 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-23 00:02 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:34 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-10 02:18 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-08-10 15:31 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:31 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:14 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:57 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:24 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 15:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 16:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 16:31 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 17:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-26 07:52 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 08:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:23 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:17 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:56 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:17 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 10:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-27 20:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:29 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 12:08 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:43 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:32 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 13:23 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 17:13 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:19 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 08:28 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-26 02:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 08:41 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:37 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 12:07 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-25 22:57 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-26 14:08 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:18 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-27 22:01 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-28 09:56 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:38 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:38 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:54 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:16 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 23:55 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 07:20 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:47 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> - 2016-08-09 21:15 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-10 12:52 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 06:59 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 16:52 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 11:22 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-10 11:31 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 14:01 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 07:12 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 17:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:40 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 09:55 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 22:51 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 17:52 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 11:49 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 20:28 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 13:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-08-10 18:14 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 21:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 10:35 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 11:00 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 18:54 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 20:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 19:53 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:41 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 20:21 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 21:46 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 20:49 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:57 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 23:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 09:07 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 13:47 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 16:29 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 23:00 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 15:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 18:13 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-15 00:14 -0700
Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 08:04 +0000
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 01:15 -0700
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 07:27 -0600
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 15:00 +0100
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 10:29 -0400
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 10:22 -0500
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-15 17:46 +0200
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 17:41 +0100
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 11:11 -0600
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 13:28 -0400
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:05 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 18:00 +0000
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:34 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:48 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:56 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:10 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:18 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 08:44 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 09:38 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-17 08:24 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-17 17:44 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-15 17:25 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:16 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:30 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:16 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 07:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-14 18:05 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-14 20:18 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 11:54 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:05 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 21:16 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:37 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 20:59 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:58 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-14 11:34 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:07 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-14 12:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 14:03 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-15 09:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:46 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:45 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-11 15:16 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:02 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:20 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:58 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 17:05 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-11 23:24 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:58 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 16:08 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 00:21 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 17:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:23 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 11:43 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-13 08:37 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 13:58 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-11 16:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-12 01:12 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-12 20:15 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:29 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-12 12:45 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-12 04:30 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 14:49 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 15:03 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:22 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 09:14 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 10:23 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 11:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:19 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:53 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:55 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 12:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b546e79d-e155-499f-9416-245ee42d6a24@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92237 |
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:07:44 AM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> The people who use this newsgroup decided some time ago, in a discussion
> on topicality, that it should remain strictly about ISO C itself and
> (for historical reasons) K&R C. Discussions about compilers are
> therefore off-topic in this group and should be taken to groups where
> those compilers are topical.
What exactly does "ISO C" mean, as applied to freestanding implementations?
As far as I can tell, the only obligations the Standard would impose upon
a freestanding implementation would be:
1. Issue any required diagnostics [prior to C99, simply outputting "This
is a diagnostic" unconditionally would suffice, but newer standards
would require running the preprocessor far enough to handle #error
directives).
2. If the program doesn't invoke UB, don't jump the rails.
The Standard does not require that any freestanding implementation define
any behaviors whatsoever, beyond refraining from arbitrary behavior for a
program which e.g. loops endlessly while accessing some dummy volatile-
qualified variables (earlier versions of the Standard wouldn't require
the accesses, but later versions might treat endless loops as UB if they
don't examine volatile variables).
Since a freestanding program can't do *anything* without performing actions
upon which the Standard imposes no requirements, I would suggest that the
language defined by the Standard would be totally useless in the absence of
implementation-specific features and guarantees. If such features and
guarantees weren't topical, there wouldn't be a whole lot useful one could
say about the language. If a program doesn't engage in UB, the as-if rule
would suggest that an implementation could ignore any computations the
program might try to perform since they wouldn't affect any observable
behavior. If the program does engage in UB, the implementation could do
anything it likes. If the program may or may not engage in UB, based on
the results of some computations, one could discuss whether the program could
be guaranteed not to do anything, but even those discussions wouldn't seem
useful for much, since any freestanding program that might or might not
produce UB could be replaced by a more efficient one that would be
guaranteed to do nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lna8gfoygg.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92254 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:07:44 AM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> The people who use this newsgroup decided some time ago, in a discussion
>> on topicality, that it should remain strictly about ISO C itself and
>> (for historical reasons) K&R C. Discussions about compilers are
>> therefore off-topic in this group and should be taken to groups where
>> those compilers are topical.
>
> What exactly does "ISO C" mean, as applied to freestanding implementations?
The answer to that question can be found by reading the C standard,
particularly section 4.
[...]
> Since a freestanding program can't do *anything* without performing actions
> upon which the Standard imposes no requirements, I would suggest that the
> language defined by the Standard would be totally useless in the absence of
> implementation-specific features and guarantees.
I would suggest that section 6 of the ISO C standard is equally
applicable to hosted and freestanding implementations, as well as
parts of section 7.
The fact that it's possible to create a perverse conforming but
useless C implementation, either hosted or freestanding, has no
relevance to the question of what's topical in comp.lang.c.
[...]
--
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 | 2016-08-15 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79fbfb0e-005d-48be-abb1-08a70e7b6b32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92258 |
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:03:58 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: > The fact that it's possible to create a perverse conforming but > useless C implementation, either hosted or freestanding, has no > relevance to the question of what's topical in comp.lang.c. The question of whether dialects beyond ISO C are topical would seem relevant, given that the extremely vast majority of embedded programs are written in such dialects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 11:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lninv1oook.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92302 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:03:58 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> The fact that it's possible to create a perverse conforming but
>> useless C implementation, either hosted or freestanding, has no
>> relevance to the question of what's topical in comp.lang.c.
>
> The question of whether dialects beyond ISO C are topical would seem
> relevant, given that the extremely vast majority of embedded programs
> are written in such dialects.
Traditionally discussion of topicality is considered topical, so I agree
with you, but I fail to see how that's relevant to what I said.
--
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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd31ca91-5e3a-4e91-a887-743e00c9069b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92307 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 19:39:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Keith Thompson napisał: > supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:03:58 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> The fact that it's possible to create a perverse conforming but > >> useless C implementation, either hosted or freestanding, has no > >> relevance to the question of what's topical in comp.lang.c. > > > > The question of whether dialects beyond ISO C are topical would seem > > relevant, given that the extremely vast majority of embedded programs > > are written in such dialects. > > Traditionally discussion of topicality is considered topical, so I agree > with you, but I fail to see how that's relevant to what I said. > traditionally traditional bullshit is considered topical by traditional zomboids - and this is wrong ofc becouse this group needs more metal matter less zomboids and bulshit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u8qpqbp69dcq2o8e2aafftb1cmeofbdj05@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #92155 |
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 13:11:40 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >But I've explicitly acknowledged that, based on the incomplete >information available to me, it does appear that getting Clang >working on Windows may be more difficult than it should be. It's not difficult at all. Part of BartC's problem is that he's always putting his code through different compiler suites and that's a very difficult thing to maintain when there's only one system path. He'd be well-advised to use a different user accounts for his various tools or better yet, a different computer. I use different VM's on my machines all the time to compile from a common code base and it keeps things simple and clean.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1qpqb5qhtcnfdkbem82fm3n8usr8e1dcs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #92153 |
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:21:36 +0100, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >However /I/ think the way it's presented is poor and could be much >better, but people here disagree with that and are always saying the >problem lies with me. My observation and experience tells me it /does/ lie with you. I'm hardly an expert at installing compiler suites on Windows but I found installing the clang suite to be utterly painless compared to all the Linux flavors of gcc discussed here, including Jacob Navia's tools.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 15:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <noiiv4$ip$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92142 |
On 08/11/2016 03:11 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: ... >> I've seen no evidence so far that clang works as a complete, standalone >> and self-contained compiler suite under Windows. > [snip] >> The standard of even the basic documentation is abysmal. It should not >> be necessary to guess these basic facts or find them out by accident. If >> you think that's whining, then you're right! > > Why are you complaining about it **here**??? There may well be real > problems (I'm simply not in a position to judge that), but we're not in > a position to do anything to fix them. > > Have you tried the mailing lists I pointed you to? If he bothered asking in the right place, he might get advice that would help him with his problem. Then he wouldn't have a problem to complain about. He likes complaining about the problem too much to ever risk getting it fixed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ssppqbht5q1m6fken9ibr88galn00s9420@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #92136 |
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 18:54:15 +0100, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >I've seen no evidence so far that clang works as a complete, standalone >and self-contained compiler suite under Windows. > >One download called 'clang for Windows' seems to need the bundle that is >also needed by mingw or tdm to make it work (I've had to give up using >'gcc'). Yet another different download seems to need MSVC (which I have >actually, but it still didn't work.) PEBKAC. As I stated up-thread, it works, it installs easily. It runs from the command line standalone and with VS. You simply need to be spoon fed your installations, apparently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noiq7n$qgk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92163 |
On 11/08/2016 22:02, Geoff wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 18:54:15 +0100, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> I've seen no evidence so far that clang works as a complete, standalone
>> and self-contained compiler suite under Windows.
>>
>> One download called 'clang for Windows' seems to need the bundle that is
>> also needed by mingw or tdm to make it work (I've had to give up using
>> 'gcc'). Yet another different download seems to need MSVC (which I have
>> actually, but it still didn't work.)
>
> PEBKAC. As I stated up-thread, it works, it installs easily. It runs
> from the command line standalone and with VS. You simply need to be
> spoon fed your installations, apparently.
>
Well MY VERSION DIDN'T.
What else can I say?
Maybe your version managed to piggy-bank itself to your MSVC
installation, which I guess you didn't delete as I suggested (or maybe
you don't understand what 'standelone' means).
That probably didn't happen on mine, but then you might, sort of, expect
the installation process to mention something in passing if it is so
critical ("By the way old chap, I couldn't find an MSVC installation so
clang might not work. Hope that's alright.")
I reinstalled the one from your link and I get this:
C:\clang\bin>clang hello.c
hello.c:1:10: fatal error: 'stdio.h' file not found
#include <stdio.h>
^
1 error generated.
C:\clang\bin>
According to you, that is entirely MY OWN FAULT.
OK.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 16:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87vaz6f07r.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #92167 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> PEBKAC. As I stated up-thread, it works, it installs easily. It runs >> from the command line standalone and with VS. You simply need to be >> spoon fed your installations, apparently. >> > > Well MY VERSION DIDN'T. PEBKAC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 17:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noks5b$tm9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92199 |
On 12/08/2016 16:58, Gareth Owen wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> PEBKAC. As I stated up-thread, it works, it installs easily. It runs >>> from the command line standalone and with VS. You simply need to be >>> spoon fed your installations, apparently. >>> >> >> Well MY VERSION DIDN'T. > > PEBKAC. > FU2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 23:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noiqf0$r7u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92136 |
On 11/08/16 19:54, BartC wrote: > On 11/08/2016 17:36, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 11/08/2016 10:35, BartC wrote: >>>> On 11/08/2016 05:53, Geoff wrote: >>>>> Your arguments are specious. You are deliberately whining. >>> > > I've seen no evidence so far that clang works as a complete, standalone > and self-contained compiler suite under Windows. > > The standard of even the basic documentation is abysmal. It should not > be necessary to guess these basic facts or find them out by accident. If > you think that's whining, then you're right! > Bart, I really think you should take your clang compiler back to the shop and demand your money back! How dare those guys charge such a price for a tool that works fine for most people, but is not properly customised to /your/ exact needs. At the very least, the developers should give up their paying day jobs, as well as family or free time, in order to write documentation to show you /exactly/ how to install everything so that you can compile "Hello, world!" with yet another compiler that you don't intend to use other than for moaning about sizes and compile times in comparison to other compilers. I hope you realise that in threads like this, you come across as being determinedly ignorant of much of computing, and as a person who would rather whine, complain and demand than listen to advice or attempt to learn or figure things out yourself. The rest of us here, who are perfectly capable and content with using the compilers we want on the platforms we want, find it hard to comprehend how you can spend so much time and effort on moaning, and so little on either installing the compiler, or simply ignoring it and using something else that you think is better. So just download the latest MSVC, including the built-in clang, and be done with it. If you live with such an old-fashioned Internet line that a few hundred megabytes is too big to download, go to a friend's house and do it there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 22:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noisdk$1ou$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92168 |
On 11/08/2016 22:24, David Brown wrote: > On 11/08/16 19:54, BartC wrote: >> The standard of even the basic documentation is abysmal. > I hope you realise that in threads like this, you come across as being > determinedly ignorant of much of computing, and as a person who would > rather whine, complain and demand than listen to advice or attempt to > learn or figure things out yourself. OK, so forget providing READMEs or INSTALL instructions, people should be able to sort things out themselves! I'm talking a README that tells you what a bit of software does, what else it might need, and how it's used. And a troubleshooting guide**. (And I hope YOU realise that the results of threads like this might mean the quality of documentation might improve. It's not going to do so if nobody questions it.) The rest of us here, who are > perfectly capable and content with using the compilers we want on the > platforms we want, find it hard to comprehend how you can spend so much > time and effort on moaning, and so little on either installing the > compiler, or simply ignoring it and using something else that you think > is better. > > So just download the latest MSVC, including the built-in clang, and be > done with it. If you live with such an old-fashioned Internet line that > a few hundred megabytes is too big to download, go to a friend's house > and do it there. Last time I looked you had to download VS and it was several gigabytes. I'm not going to download that much stuff just for a compiler! Besides it would be no good to me. I can only make use of compilers that can be run from a command line, because then it means I can invoke them from my own IDE. Is Clang such a compiler or not? If it needs to piggyback on to another compiler suite or needs some resource X which needs to be acquired separately, then fine - BUT TELL ME FIRST! Not just assume people will know. And if, somehow, the installation can't find that resource, then AGAIN TELL ME! At the minute CLANG.EXE is a massive 59.6MB file yet it can't even compile Hello, World! 0/10 I'm afraid. (**I wrote my first user manual around 1983 (for a microcomputer). Unusually, I didn't assume that nothing would go wrong. My experience even then told me that a lot of things DID go wrong. I'd done plenty of technical support on the phone so I knew the things that people had trouble with. So I listed the likely things that could go wrong and what could be done about them.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 16:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln60r6rjhw.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92170 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> (And I hope YOU realise that the results of threads like this might mean
> the quality of documentation might improve. It's not going to do so if
> nobody questions it.)
Only if the people responsible for the documentation read comp.lang.c.
If they did, I suspect they would have responded by now.
Remember those mailing lists I pointed you to?
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-users/2016-August/001006.html
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Mayuresh Kathe via cfe-users
<cfe-users at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Does LLVM/Clang now support development under MS Windows without
> having to
> rely on any extra external components, like SDKs, etc.?
No, only the compiler (and linker with lld) is provided. You still
need an SDK to get all the headers, libraries, etc.
Cheers,
Hans
Perhaps somebody else on that mailing list can help you.
[...]
--
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 | 2016-08-12 00:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noj1an$itb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92173 |
On 12/08/2016 00:08, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> (And I hope YOU realise that the results of threads like this might mean >> the quality of documentation might improve. It's not going to do so if >> nobody questions it.) > > Only if the people responsible for the documentation read comp.lang.c. > If they did, I suspect they would have responded by now. > > Remember those mailing lists I pointed you to? > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-users/2016-August/001006.html > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Mayuresh Kathe via cfe-users > <cfe-users at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Does LLVM/Clang now support development under MS Windows without > > having to > > rely on any extra external components, like SDKs, etc.? > > No, only the compiler (and linker with lld) is provided. You still > need an SDK to get all the headers, libraries, etc. > > Cheers, > Hans > > Perhaps somebody else on that mailing list can help you. You still seem to be confusing two issues: that of the documentation for clang still being poor (otherwise there wouldn't be queries like the above). And the trouble I'm personally having with it. I myself am not desperate enough to use it that I need to start asking on forums[2]. If I can use it with minimal effort, fine. If not, then I won't. But a lot of the reasons for that are the docs[1]. However I am being personally insulted in this group by people claiming that these problems in communication I've highlighted are due to my not trying hard enough or being generally inept. In that case I'm going to respond. ([1] Also I've had seen enough of LLVM in the past that I doubt those guys are capable of doing anything simple. I'd been looking at using LLVM as a possible compiler back-end; I found 44 *SETS* of documentation! Where do you even start? Obviously they are doing things on a big scale. It's like the difference between a corporation and a one-man business. And I've run a one-man business...) ([2] I have used dedicated forums for specific issues, for example with lccwin and with Pelles C. But those were genuine problems in a product that was otherwise well-documented.) > No, only the compiler (and linker with lld) is provided. You still > need an SDK to get all the headers, libraries, etc. (Actually, the lld linker is not used. The mingw/tdm version uses the mingw/tdm's LD linker. And 'SDK' unfortunately isn't enough of a clue to sourcing actual downloads that will work. Unless they were talking generically.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 17:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1t1urfr7.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92175 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> You still seem to be confusing two issues: that of the documentation
> for clang still being poor (otherwise there wouldn't be queries like the
> above). And the trouble I'm personally having with it.
Perhaps.
[...]
> However I am being personally insulted in this group by people claiming
> that these problems in communication I've highlighted are due to my not
> trying hard enough or being generally inept. In that case I'm going to
> respond.
I suggest we just drop the subject. I accept part of the blame
for keeping this argument going this long.
[...]
--
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 Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 12:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nok831$pt5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92175 |
On 12/08/16 01:21, BartC wrote: > I myself am not desperate enough to use it that I need to start asking > on forums[2]. If I can use it with minimal effort, fine. If not, then I > won't. But a lot of the reasons for that are the docs[1]. > You are desperate enough to make dozens (or is it now hundreds?) of posts in c.l.c. complaining about the situation and attacking people who try to help or explain what clang is and what a "compiler" is. If you used a tiny fraction of that effort in a post in the /correct/ place, llvm/clang's mailing lists, you would no doubt have got your answer long ago. I'll agree that not everyone here has been as polite in this thread as they might normally be. But /you/ started this discussion, /you/ turned it into an argument, and then into a bar room brawl. And once you stop beating us all up about the problems you have with gcc and clang on Windows, the happier we all will be. It doesn't matter if the problems are /real/ gcc or clang problems, or simply problems that /you/ are having with them. The problems are not /our/ fault, and despite many people's attempts at helping you, your problems are not resolved - more moaning here will not help that situation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 11:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nok982$t7p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92183 |
On 12/08/2016 11:23, David Brown wrote: > On 12/08/16 01:21, BartC wrote: > >> I myself am not desperate enough to use it that I need to start asking >> on forums[2]. If I can use it with minimal effort, fine. If not, then I >> won't. But a lot of the reasons for that are the docs[1]. >> > > You are desperate enough to make dozens (or is it now hundreds?) of > posts in c.l.c. complaining about the situation No. I made ONE post in this thread related to clang: On 22/07/2016 22:18, BartC wrote: > My experience of using Clang is that it is not complete: it assumes a > gcc installation (so that it can make use of gcc's header files and > possibly libraries too). > > So if you could only install one, gcc would make more sense... > My mistake was that I forgot to say that this experience was of using the 'Clang for Windows' download. Any other posts were in relation to others' responses. Notably yours! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93a11788-045f-4d67-aa8e-09fd3b285a92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92185 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 6:43:22 AM UTC-4, Bart wrote: > On 12/08/2016 11:23, David Brown wrote: > > On 12/08/16 01:21, BartC wrote: > > > >> I myself am not desperate enough to use it that I need to start asking > >> on forums[2]. If I can use it with minimal effort, fine. If not, then I > >> won't. But a lot of the reasons for that are the docs[1]. > >> > > > > You are desperate enough to make dozens (or is it now hundreds?) of > > posts in c.l.c. complaining about the situation > > No. I made ONE post in this thread related to clang: > > On 22/07/2016 22:18, BartC wrote: > > > My experience of using Clang is that it is not complete: it assumes a > > gcc installation (so that it can make use of gcc's header files and > > possibly libraries too). > > > > So if you could only install one, gcc would make more sense... > > > > My mistake was that I forgot to say that this experience was of using > the 'Clang for Windows' download. > > Any other posts were in relation to others' responses. Notably yours! But almost every single one of those other posts also contained complaints, so he's including them in his count of the messages you've posted containing complaints. The point isn't whether or not you were responding to other people's messages - the point is the time that you put into writing those messages, time that could have been far more productively spent contacting clang experts on the clang mailing group. The only plausible reason for posting complaints here rather than on the mailing group is that you like complaining about clang more than would you like having a working installation of clang.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web