Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #88990 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-13 01:15 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-14 01:32 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 382 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-13 01:15 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 08:47 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-13 02:07 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 13:48 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 10:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 13:54 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 13:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 15:26 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 17:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-13 10:05 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 20:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-13 14:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 22:21 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-13 22:59 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 11:19 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 21:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 20:28 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 12:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 21:29 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 15:03 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-15 19:11 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-15 16:14 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:04 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-18 16:47 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-23 20:26 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 21:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 21:54 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 23:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-13 18:51 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 16:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-14 08:38 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-06-15 16:42 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 17:05 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-19 09:49 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-19 15:14 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 10:31 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 13:38 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 15:21 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 15:44 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 16:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 16:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 22:09 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-14 14:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 23:05 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-14 15:12 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 23:16 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-15 07:45 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 03:02 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-15 11:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 13:04 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 09:33 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 11:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 21:27 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 13:41 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 00:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 14:24 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 01:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 08:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 09:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 10:12 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 01:31 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 11:03 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 08:42 -0700
Kiki's killfile (Was: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-06-16 17:03 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:16 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-18 16:49 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 23:42 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:35 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 01:19 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 15:12 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 08:21 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 23:10 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 16:54 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 19:10 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 06:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 01:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 07:13 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 05:29 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 08:12 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 06:18 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 21:57 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 20:54 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 23:21 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 05:18 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:19 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:40 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 16:37 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 22:08 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 21:02 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 00:17 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 22:33 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 12:07 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 10:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 21:07 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-19 13:36 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 13:50 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 22:42 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-19 23:16 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 00:12 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 16:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 01:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-20 08:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 16:57 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-20 14:23 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 15:56 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 01:24 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 17:51 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 02:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 01:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 10:10 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 02:22 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 10:51 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 03:12 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-20 11:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 03:59 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 12:19 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 04:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 13:05 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 05:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 15:53 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 16:22 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 17:13 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 10:11 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 21:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 19:10 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 01:14 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-21 17:27 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-22 08:24 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 20:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-22 23:23 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-23 20:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 23:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 19:02 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-21 03:45 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 20:27 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-21 10:03 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-21 02:44 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-21 12:51 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-21 10:14 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-21 16:44 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-21 19:50 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-21 16:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-21 10:54 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-21 20:02 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-21 21:13 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-21 13:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 10:00 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 22:07 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 19:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 01:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-20 12:38 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 15:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 23:17 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 21:43 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:36 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 10:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 16:03 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 22:28 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:11 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 02:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-06 15:12 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-06 08:29 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:54 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 07:18 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 01:58 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-16 19:37 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2016-07-16 15:58 -0300
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-16 19:25 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 12:10 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-06-18 10:35 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:48 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-06-18 23:11 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 21:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-06-19 08:23 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 14:30 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 09:43 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 14:55 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 16:29 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 15:42 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:23 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 10:36 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 15:53 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 11:40 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 09:30 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 17:41 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 08:11 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 11:59 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 09:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 18:24 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 14:33 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 16:12 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-18 09:16 +1200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 14:16 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 06:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 07:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 18:34 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 18:06 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:06 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-17 21:49 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 15:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-18 02:18 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 19:00 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:36 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:28 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 03:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 03:31 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 20:00 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 15:34 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 10:20 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 02:13 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 11:44 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 10:47 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 03:41 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 10:52 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 13:18 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 10:20 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 10:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 12:55 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 12:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 14:11 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 09:44 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 18:38 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 11:46 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:07 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 12:23 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:43 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 13:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 21:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 14:42 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 23:28 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 15:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 16:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 01:11 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 18:01 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 18:44 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 19:42 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 13:06 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-16 15:06 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 14:40 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 09:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-06-17 20:51 +0800
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 10:32 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 11:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 12:59 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 12:34 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 13:56 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 13:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 14:33 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 08:47 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 11:51 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 20:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 16:36 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 21:54 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 17:05 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 16:05 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:34 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-06-17 20:43 +0800
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 06:15 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 15:47 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 07:51 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 11:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 14:57 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:37 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-19 00:50 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 17:30 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-19 06:35 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-19 01:29 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 17:43 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-19 02:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 18:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 17:14 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-19 15:17 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 14:52 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 12:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 20:55 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 16:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 16:19 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 16:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 01:01 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 17:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 21:55 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 10:56 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 06:36 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 16:43 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 09:13 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-18 18:49 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 11:46 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 21:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-18 13:30 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 11:17 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 01:18 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 17:53 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 18:20 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 21:37 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 10:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-18 07:52 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 13:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 22:01 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-06-18 10:02 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 21:10 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 06:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 15:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 10:35 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 09:07 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-06-16 15:32 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 17:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-06-16 22:26 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 23:44 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 16:56 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 13:43 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 16:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 20:57 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-16 21:12 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 22:31 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 22:32 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 19:59 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 03:11 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-17 09:11 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 12:20 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 12:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 09:24 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 18:16 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 11:15 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:09 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 11:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 12:01 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-15 19:15 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 03:12 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 13:03 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 04:22 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 14:20 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-15 19:33 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:39 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 09:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-13 14:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-13 15:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-14 09:51 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 23:19 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 23:46 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-13 19:04 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-13 20:04 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 10:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 00:23 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 11:17 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 02:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-14 08:37 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 08:56 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-14 09:14 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-18 11:47 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 10:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 12:54 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 05:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-13 22:56 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-15 10:09 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-06-15 15:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-16 14:39 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-16 15:11 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 14:28 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-16 21:25 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-16 12:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-16 22:00 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 21:14 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-16 14:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 22:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-17 13:31 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-17 13:28 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-06-16 21:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 10:53 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 08:39 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-08-14 01:32 -0400
Page 15 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 20 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnfus8su1f.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89617 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> <snip>
>> Very few systems push the stack for every block.
>> So the local block scopes are replaced by function scope variables.
>
> That's mixing up the scope and the lifetime. This optimisation or
> implementation technique changes the lifetime of the object -- the scope
> of the identifier must stay the same or the compiler would break some
> programs.
Strictly speaking, it doesn't change the lifetime of the object; that's
defined by the standard. The lifetime ends when execution reaches the
end of the enclosing block. What the optimization does is cause the
memory to be deallocated only on return from the function. An object's
lifetime can end while memory is still allocated for it.
Also, consider parallel nested blocks:
void func(void) {
int x;
{
int y;
...
}
{
int z;
...
}
}
An implementation might allocate memory for all automatic objects
on entry to the function, and deallocate it all on exit, but
still store y and z in the same location. Storage for y is not
deallocated at the end of its lifetime (in the sense of adjusting
the stack pointer or whatever), but it's reused for something else.
--
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 | 2016-06-17 14:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk0val$jnh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89401 |
On 17/06/2016 13:43, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> BartC wrote:
>> {
>> { A;
>> int A=0;
>> A;
>
> A sensible programmer might just not reuse the name but give the second
> variable a distinct name. If I would see such a mess from an employee we
> would have a serious talk.
But block scopes allow just that: several versions of A within a
function, as well as two possible versions of A within the same block.
Little would be lost if there could only be at most one local A within a
function (which people could declare inside a block if they want).
>> To me, that is unsatisfactory. Why should a language go to the trouble
>> of allowing shadowing between block scope variables, then someone else
>> has to go to the further trouble of detecting such shadowing in the
>> compiler?!
>>
>> And of course many compilers won't have that ability. It seems utterly
>> pointless.
>
> Taking your arguments to the end, why not declare all variables a file
> scope.
Functions are an obvious and very well known and understood method of
structuring code into smaller pieces. It is useful to create a local
environment with its own declarations to deal with a specific task.
If you have a desperate need to do that with blocks, then perhaps you
might need to split up your functions a bit more!
And even with functions with their undoubted usefulness, you're only
allowed one level of function scoping; there are no nested functions.
Yet nested block scopes to any level are allowed even though they are
less useful.
> Just because you do not understand what blocks are for does not make it
> pointless.
So what *are* blocks for?
For me, you use a block - ie. statements with {,} braces - when you have
a branch of an if-statement or a loop body that consists of more than
one statement. (Apart from function bodies of course.)
That is their primary use, not for inventing yet another local scope
within a function that should already be providing a small, local,
self-contained environment so that it doesn't need a dozen more to
bamboozle the reader of the code.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln4m8rvcf0.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89415 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Functions are an obvious and very well known and understood method of
> structuring code into smaller pieces. It is useful to create a local
> environment with its own declarations to deal with a specific task.
So are blocks, to anyone who knows C reasonably well.
[...]
> And even with functions with their undoubted usefulness, you're only
> allowed one level of function scoping; there are no nested functions.
> Yet nested block scopes to any level are allowed even though they are
> less useful.
Because it's simpler to permit unlimited nesting than to impose an
arbitrary restriction.
[...]
> So what *are* blocks for?
>
> For me, you use a block - ie. statements with {,} braces - when you have
> a branch of an if-statement or a loop body that consists of more than
> one statement. (Apart from function bodies of course.)
Personally, I use braces even if there's only one statement; with that
difference, that's the primary use of blocks.
> That is their primary use, not for inventing yet another local scope
> within a function that should already be providing a small, local,
> self-contained environment so that it doesn't need a dozen more to
> bamboozle the reader of the code.
If I need to add a new variable in the middle of a medium-length
function, I can either just declare and initialize it at the point where
I need it (which means its scope extends to the end of the existing
block), or I can restrict its scope by creating a new block to contain
it. None of this is for the purpose of bamboozling anybody.
For example, if I need to swap two variables, I might write something
like this:
int x, y;
/* code that sets x and y */
{
int old_x = x;
x = y;
y = old_x;
}
Or perhaps:
int x, y;
/* code that sets x and y */
{ const int old_x = x; x = y; y = old_x; }
Now if I saved the address of old_x in a variable whose scope is bigger
than the scope of old_x, then I could have problems. *Which is why I
don't do that.*
If you'd rather define old_x at the top of the function, and wait to
assign a value to it until the value of x has been computed, you can do
that. But I find my approach cleaner and easier to maintain.
--
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 | 2016-06-17 20:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk1kjt$5dg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89444 |
On 17/06/2016 20:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> Functions are an obvious and very well known and understood method of
>> structuring code into smaller pieces. It is useful to create a local
>> environment with its own declarations to deal with a specific task.
>
> So are blocks, to anyone who knows C reasonably well.
To nowhere near the same extent as named functions.
> For example, if I need to swap two variables, I might write something
> like this:
>
> int x, y;
> /* code that sets x and y */
> {
> int old_x = x;
> x = y;
> y = old_x;
> }
>
> Or perhaps:
>
> int x, y;
> /* code that sets x and y */
> { const int old_x = x; x = y; y = old_x; }
>
> Now if I saved the address of old_x in a variable whose scope is bigger
> than the scope of old_x, then I could have problems. *Which is why I
> don't do that.*
>
> If you'd rather define old_x at the top of the function, and wait to
> assign a value to it until the value of x has been computed, you can do
> that. But I find my approach cleaner and easier to maintain.
You could write your code exactly the same way with block-wide scopes.
And with function-wide scopes for that matter. Then you wouldn't need
the extra braces either.
(Except that if planning to swap x and y a few times, you need to avoid
redefining old_x.)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr3bvtnto.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89449 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 17/06/2016 20:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Functions are an obvious and very well known and understood method of
>>> structuring code into smaller pieces. It is useful to create a local
>>> environment with its own declarations to deal with a specific task.
>>
>> So are blocks, to anyone who knows C reasonably well.
>
> To nowhere near the same extent as named functions.
I disagree. Anyone who claims to know C has to be familiar with block
scope.
>> For example, if I need to swap two variables, I might write something
>> like this:
>>
>> int x, y;
>> /* code that sets x and y */
>> {
>> int old_x = x;
>> x = y;
>> y = old_x;
>> }
>>
>> Or perhaps:
>>
>> int x, y;
>> /* code that sets x and y */
>> { const int old_x = x; x = y; y = old_x; }
>>
>> Now if I saved the address of old_x in a variable whose scope is bigger
>> than the scope of old_x, then I could have problems. *Which is why I
>> don't do that.*
>>
>> If you'd rather define old_x at the top of the function, and wait to
>> assign a value to it until the value of x has been computed, you can do
>> that. But I find my approach cleaner and easier to maintain.
>
> You could write your code exactly the same way with block-wide scopes.
> And with function-wide scopes for that matter. Then you wouldn't need
> the extra braces either.
I already said I might or might not use braces. I probably would in
this case, but this:
int x, y;
/* code that sets x and y */
int old_x = x;
x = y;
y = old_x;
is equally valid. The difference is that the scope of old_x extends
farther. But in this case I like the braces because, in addition to
creating a smaller scope for old_x, they encapsulate the swapping
operation. (Writing a function is also an option, but that feels a bit
too "heavy" for something this simple.)
> (Except that if planning to swap x and y a few times, you need to avoid
> redefining old_x.)
--
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 | 2016-06-17 16:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f562fb1-43aa-4213-85e6-97b5954eb162@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89472 |
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 6:09:28 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: > I disagree. Anyone who claims to know C has to be familiar with block > scope. Indeed, although it may be worth noting that a popular web programming language which has some syntax elements that resemble those of C (braces, operators, silly octal notation, for loops, etc.) allows declarations within blocks or "for" statements, and doesn't squawk at repeated declarations, but in fact treats all declarations as though hoisted to the top of the function in which they appear. Programmers who come from that kind of background may find block scope "surprising".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnmvmjtm18.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89473 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 6:09:28 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> I disagree. Anyone who claims to know C has to be familiar with block
>> scope.
>
> Indeed, although it may be worth noting that a popular web programming
> language which has some syntax elements that resemble those of C (braces,
> operators, silly octal notation, for loops, etc.) allows declarations
> within blocks or "for" statements, and doesn't squawk at repeated
> declarations, but in fact treats all declarations as though hoisted to
> the top of the function in which they appear. Programmers who come from
> that kind of background may find block scope "surprising".
What language?
--
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 | 2016-06-18 01:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk231t$m05$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89474 |
On 18/06/2016 00:48, Keith Thompson wrote: > supercat@casperkitty.com writes: >> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 6:09:28 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> I disagree. Anyone who claims to know C has to be familiar with block >>> scope. >> >> Indeed, although it may be worth noting that a popular web programming >> language which has some syntax elements that resemble those of C (braces, >> operators, silly octal notation, for loops, etc.) allows declarations >> within blocks or "for" statements, and doesn't squawk at repeated >> declarations, but in fact treats all declarations as though hoisted to >> the top of the function in which they appear. Programmers who come from >> that kind of background may find block scope "surprising". > > What language? Possibly Javascript. But it might have nested functions to do the job properly. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 17:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <804a7a7b-b177-488b-8621-3e774e012c0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89476 |
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> On 18/06/2016 00:48, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > supercat writes:
> >> Indeed, although it may be worth noting that a popular web programming
> >> language which has some syntax elements that resemble those of C (braces,
> >> operators, silly octal notation, for loops, etc.) allows declarations
> >> within blocks or "for" statements, and doesn't squawk at repeated
> >> declarations, but in fact treats all declarations as though hoisted to
> >> the top of the function in which they appear. Programmers who come from
> >> that kind of background may find block scope "surprising".
> >
> > What language?
>
> Possibly Javascript.
>
> But it might have nested functions to do the job properly.
I didn't want to mention that name for fear of lightning bolts from above,
and also because I don't know all the distinctions between that name, or
ECMAScript, or any of the other variants.
The language does indeed have nested functions and some rather bizarre
scoping rules. If the first token isn't a string literal "use strict";
the scoping rules are particularly bizarre. Given
function f(a) { var x=a; x++; return x; }
a local variable x would be created iwthin function f(a). If the "var"
declaration were omitted but the caller's context included a variable
named x, that variable would be assigned and incremented. If the
caller's context didn't include such a variable, it would be created
within the caller's context.
If the interpreter encounters the string literal "use strict" before
anything else, use of an undeclared variable will cause an error rather
than creating a new variable in the caller's context, but a declaration
like "var x=a;" that occurs within a function will be processed as though
it were a "var" declaration at the start of the function, and an
assignment at the point where the declaration appears; if multiple
declarations of the same name appear within a function, one variable will
be created for all of them.
I think you can see how someone who is used to that may find C's rules a
bit different, even though the aforementioned parts of the syntax are
similar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 21:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lna8ijt7s2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89480 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>> On 18/06/2016 00:48, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> > supercat writes:
>> >> Indeed, although it may be worth noting that a popular web programming
>> >> language which has some syntax elements that resemble those of C (braces,
>> >> operators, silly octal notation, for loops, etc.) allows declarations
>> >> within blocks or "for" statements, and doesn't squawk at repeated
>> >> declarations, but in fact treats all declarations as though hoisted to
>> >> the top of the function in which they appear. Programmers who come from
>> >> that kind of background may find block scope "surprising".
>> >
>> > What language?
>>
>> Possibly Javascript.
>>
>> But it might have nested functions to do the job properly.
>
> I didn't want to mention that name for fear of lightning bolts from above,
> and also because I don't know all the distinctions between that name, or
> ECMAScript, or any of the other variants.
Ok, here's an example:
#!/usr/bin/rhino
{
print("Outer scope");
var n = 10;
{
print("Inner scope");
var n = 42;
print(n);
}
print(n);
}
The output on my system is:
Outer scope
Inner scope
42
42
There must be some rationale for that, but I don't know what it is.
I suppose someone who's used to that behavior (and, unlike me,
understand it) might find C's scoping rules odd. I can definitely
say that, having programmed in C and a number of other languages
with similar scoping rules, I find JavaScript's behavior very odd.
I don't believe it supports any kind of argument about whether C's rules
are a good idea.
[...]
--
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 | 2016-06-18 10:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk35sk$ac7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89501 |
On 18/06/2016 05:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
> supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
>> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>>> On 18/06/2016 00:48, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> supercat writes:
>>>>> Indeed, although it may be worth noting that a popular web programming
>>>>> language which has some syntax elements that resemble those of C (braces,
>>>>> operators, silly octal notation, for loops, etc.) allows declarations
>>>>> within blocks or "for" statements, and doesn't squawk at repeated
>>>>> declarations, but in fact treats all declarations as though hoisted to
>>>>> the top of the function in which they appear. Programmers who come from
>>>>> that kind of background may find block scope "surprising".
>>>>
>>>> What language?
>>>
>>> Possibly Javascript.
>>>
>>> But it might have nested functions to do the job properly.
>>
>> I didn't want to mention that name for fear of lightning bolts from above,
>> and also because I don't know all the distinctions between that name, or
>> ECMAScript, or any of the other variants.
>
> Ok, here's an example:
>
> #!/usr/bin/rhino
>
> {
> print("Outer scope");
> var n = 10;
> {
> print("Inner scope");
> var n = 42;
> print(n);
> }
> print(n);
> }
>
> The output on my system is:
>
> Outer scope
> Inner scope
> 42
> 42
>
> There must be some rationale for that, but I don't know what it is.
It doesn't seem that bizarre to me. I've just had a go (using
http://math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/js/) and apparently this is allowed:
var n = 10;
var n = 20;
var n = 30;
Being an interpreter, it just executes whatever it encounters. So the
first line declares a local n and assigns 10 to it. The second also
declares n, but it already exists, so it now just assigns 20 to it (and
there can be other code in-between).
Because there is only 'function scope', that some of these can be inside
braces is not an issue; clearly JS doesn't have block scope, and allows
declarations anywhere. It is a scripting language after all and can
afford to be more informal about these things.
Seems strange? Just think of 'var' as 'let' instead. Consider also that
C allows this at file scope:
int n;
int n;
int n;
(My own scripting languages are rather old-fashioned about these things
and insist that each name is only declared once (so as to pick up likely
errors).)
--
Bartc
>
> I suppose someone who's used to that behavior (and, unlike me,
> understand it) might find C's scoping rules odd. I can definitely
> say that, having programmed in C and a number of other languages
> with similar scoping rules, I find JavaScript's behavior very odd.
>
> I don't believe it supports any kind of argument about whether C's rules
> are a good idea.
>
> [...]
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 06:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <371bbb4f-2095-4e1f-ac68-2008c2c6cb67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89514 |
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 4:56:43 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote: > On 18/06/2016 05:55, Keith Thompson wrote: > > There must be some rationale for that, but I don't know what it is. > > It doesn't seem that bizarre to me. I've just had a go (using > http://math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/js/) and apparently this is allowed: > > var n = 10; > var n = 20; > var n = 30; > > Being an interpreter, it just executes whatever it encounters. So the > first line declares a local n and assigns 10 to it. The second also > declares n, but it already exists, so it now just assigns 20 to it (and > there can be other code in-between). Javascript doesn't just process scripts in the order they are received. Declarations are hoisted to the top of the function in which they are defined. Though I erred in describing variables that aren't declared locally as affecting the caller's scope; they affect the scope in which the functions are declared, which may or may not have anything to do with the caller. In any case, I merely intended to make the point that not all popular languages which use C's block syntax use anything remotely resembling C's block semantics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 16:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk3q7t$msn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89531 |
On 18/06/2016 14:36, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 4:56:43 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>> On 18/06/2016 05:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> There must be some rationale for that, but I don't know what it is.
>>
>> It doesn't seem that bizarre to me. I've just had a go (using
>> http://math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/js/) and apparently this is allowed:
>>
>> var n = 10;
>> var n = 20;
>> var n = 30;
>>
>> Being an interpreter, it just executes whatever it encounters. So the
>> first line declares a local n and assigns 10 to it. The second also
>> declares n, but it already exists, so it now just assigns 20 to it (and
>> there can be other code in-between).
>
> Javascript doesn't just process scripts in the order they are received.
> Declarations are hoisted to the top of the function in which they are
> defined.
Any assignments in the declarations are done in proper sequence, not at
the top of the function.
The 'hoisting' of the declarations to the top is just another way of
saying the names declared have function scope. It's just unfortunate
that duplicate declarations are tolerated as that can cause confusion
for people expecting C block-scope semantics.
> In any case, I merely intended to make the point that not all popular
> languages which use C's block syntax use anything remotely resembling
> C's block semantics.
That's an important point. A language can use the {,} method of
delimiting a statement sequence without necessarily creating a new
scope. In fact, I can't see why there has to be such a connection at all.
If I type:
if (p==NULL) {puts("out of memory"); exit(1);}
then the {,} need to be used simply because puts() and exit() form two
statements not one. Perhaps we should adopt fir's idea and use:
if (p==NULL) puts("out of memory"), exit(1);
where possible to avoid the temptation to create autonomous name scopes
all over the place.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00a681ea-feb0-4dd4-aefe-0b8ee7d94a07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89536 |
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 10:44:04 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> If I type:
>
> if (p==NULL) {puts("out of memory"); exit(1);}
>
> then the {,} need to be used simply because puts() and exit() form two
> statements not one. Perhaps we should adopt fir's idea and use:
>
> if (p==NULL) puts("out of memory"), exit(1);
>
> where possible to avoid the temptation to create autonomous name scopes
> all over the place.
Line-oriented syntax has a lot going for it. I like the way VB.NET
regards an "If/Then" which has nothing following it on the same line as
the start of a multi-line if/then construct which requires an "End If",
but treats a "Then" followed by code on the same line as a self-contained
entity [if the latter has an "Else", the "Else" and the statements which
are controlled thereby must appear on the same line]. VB.NET uses a
colon as a statement separator, and multiple colon-separated statements
can follow "Then" on the same line. The one-line syntax dates back to
early BASIC interpreters where evaluating "THEN" with a false condition
would cause the compiler to load the next-line link into the program
scanning location (rather than having to scan until the end of the line)
but augmented with "Else" and multi-line conditionals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 18:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wplms7zh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #89531 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes: <snip> > Javascript doesn't just process scripts in the order they are received. > Declarations are hoisted to the top of the function in which they are > defined. Though I erred in describing variables that aren't declared > locally as affecting the caller's scope; they affect the scope in which > the functions are declared, which may or may not have anything to do with > the caller. They become properties of the global object (in non-strict mode). <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 11:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4add905-8679-4b79-84b4-f395d9cf7fdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89542 |
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 12:49:13 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > supercat writes: > <snip> > > Javascript doesn't just process scripts in the order they are received. > > Declarations are hoisted to the top of the function in which they are > > defined. Though I erred in describing variables that aren't declared > > locally as affecting the caller's scope; they affect the scope in which > > the functions are declared, which may or may not have anything to do with > > the caller. > > They become properties of the global object (in non-strict mode). I neglected to consider that if the variable which isn't declared in the innermost scope isn't assigned in the next outer one either, then setting it in the inner one will set it in the next outer one, which will in turn set it in the one enclosing that, until either a scope is found where the variable is declared or global scope is reached. In any case, this is getting way off topic, but compared with js the rules of C seem pretty sane [except that I'd say "extern" should imply external linkage even when an initializer is supplied, so as to permit inference of an array's size based upon its initializer list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 21:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk49fb$ecl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89544 |
On 18/06/2016 19:46, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 12:49:13 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> They become properties of the global object (in non-strict mode). > In any case, > this is getting way off topic, but compared with js the rules of C seem > pretty sane But the JS rules apply when the language doesn't require declarations. C usually does so you can't directly compare such things. (Well apart from external functions, but I think that loophole has been partly fixed.) Assuming everything is properly declared, I think C scope rules are probably still crazier than JS especially when you throw in the simultaneous namespaces of C. For example, a single function in C can have: * An unlimited number of types, enums or variables called 'A' * An unlimited number of struct tags called 'A' * At most one label called 'A' * In any one block, up to 4 different 'A's can be visible, or up to 3 'A's at any one point in the block. I'm not familiar with JS but I'd guess the number might be at most one possible name called 'A', as it is with my languages. (All exclude member names of structs, and, where available, names inside nested functions. I'm counting only names that don't appear after "." or "->") So, you still think C is saner? (I had been wondering whether to throw together a C compiler front-end sometime this year. But it means that, no matter how much I might disagree with these quirks, I'd have to implement all this stuff. And a lot more.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnmvmis0hx.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89555 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Assuming everything is properly declared, I think C scope rules are
> probably still crazier than JS especially when you throw in the
> simultaneous namespaces of C.
>
> For example, a single function in C can have:
>
> * An unlimited number of types, enums or variables called 'A'
>
> * An unlimited number of struct tags called 'A'
>
> * At most one label called 'A'
>
> * In any one block, up to 4 different 'A's can be visible,
> or up to 3 'A's at any one point in the block.
>
> I'm not familiar with JS but I'd guess the number might be at most one
> possible name called 'A', as it is with my languages.
>
> (All exclude member names of structs, and, where available, names inside
> nested functions. I'm counting only names that don't appear after "." or
> "->")
>
> So, you still think C is saner?
I don't know JavaScript well enough to judge how sane it is. But I do
think that C's rules are quite sane. Sure, they show signs of having
evolved rather than being a single coherent design, but the rules are
consistent and not horribly complex.
And there is not an extra layer of arbitrary restrictions to prevent
programmers from writing ugly code; rather, the language depends on
programmers to have some degree of good taste.
Yes, an identifier `A` can have several different meanings within a
block, depending on just where it's used.
Have this ever been a real problem for you in non-contrived code?
> (I had been wondering whether to throw together a C compiler front-end
> sometime this year. But it means that, no matter how much I might
> disagree with these quirks, I'd have to implement all this stuff. And a
> lot more.)
--
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 | 2016-06-18 11:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk374p$eks$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89480 |
On 18/06/2016 01:38, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>> Possibly Javascript.
> The language does indeed have nested functions and some rather bizarre
> scoping rules. If the first token isn't a string literal "use strict";
> the scoping rules are particularly bizarre. Given
>
> function f(a) { var x=a; x++; return x; }
>
> a local variable x would be created iwthin function f(a). If the "var"
> declaration were omitted but the caller's context included a variable
> named x, that variable would be assigned and incremented. If the
> caller's context didn't include such a variable, it would be created
> within the caller's context.
Languages that don't require declarations will need some rules in place.
Letting an undeclared name in a function refer either to a global (if
one is visible) or to a new local (if not) seems reasonable enough.
But one problem is that if later on a global is introduced that clashes
with the local, then the function can be screwed up. (Although in 30
years of using such a scheme, I've rarely had problems.)
Python's approach is different: undeclared names are declared as locals
if they are assigned to within the function, otherwise they can refer to
a global. You need a special declaration for a global name that is
assigned to within the function (assigning and modifying have subtle
differences in this language).
Python doesn't have declarations for locals, other than just assigning
to them, and this can be done anywhere; there are no block scopes (but
it does have nested functions).
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 01:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk240h$ob2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89472 |
On 18/06/2016 00:09, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 17/06/2016 20:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> Functions are an obvious and very well known and understood method of
>>>> structuring code into smaller pieces. It is useful to create a local
>>>> environment with its own declarations to deal with a specific task.
>>>
>>> So are blocks, to anyone who knows C reasonably well.
>>
>> To nowhere near the same extent as named functions.
>
> I disagree. Anyone who claims to know C has to be familiar with block
> scope.
I said that functions are more commonly used to create localised code.
I know what C block scopes are, but I've never used them, other than
using top-level blocks to enable what I call 'function scope'.
I normally write code in a language that, while it only has function
scope variables within a function, is actually more flexible than C in
where those declarations can be placed.
Yet funnily enough they're always at the top of a function. I wonder why
that is?
(I've just been looking through a bunch of CPython C sources, where
although most declarations are at the top of a function, there are a
significant number of non-top-level block declarations used too. And I
can tell you they're a damn nuisance!
You see something like this:
if (PyLong_CheckExact(result)) {
int overflow;
long i_result = PyLong_AsLongAndOverflow(result, &overflow);
/* If this already overflowed, don't even enter the loop. */
if (overflow == 0) {
Py_DECREF(result);
result = NULL;
}
and you think, glancing down quickly, that the scope of 'overflow' ends
at the } above (but actually it doesn't), then get puzzled why there is
another reference to 'overflow' later on.
So just as I expected, it's down to counting and matching braces to
figure out the exact scope of any of these variables. And in this
source, there are a variety of brace placement styles to help catch you out.
Then if you start from the other end, seeing 'overflow', then you need
to scan *all* the code backwards to find its declaration, instead of
going straight to the top of the function.
Just as bad as I thought it would be. (Of course everyone else will say
they use smart editors to tell them everything so that it is not a
problem. But /I/ see it as a problem when a language has to rely on
smart editors, highlighting, compiler options and diagnostics to
overcome poor design.)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web