Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #91178 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-27 22:36 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-01 07:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 193 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
IEEE: C is the first programming language jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-27 22:36 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 16:42 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-28 01:47 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 17:20 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 18:03 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 00:43 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 05:12 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 05:41 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:02 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 06:26 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:45 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 09:11 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:30 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-28 14:03 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 05:24 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 01:14 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 18:27 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 12:08 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-29 11:37 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 12:51 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-29 08:36 -0600
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 05:32 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 14:42 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 06:59 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 16:08 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-29 09:16 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:21 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 17:55 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:00 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:48 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 21:12 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 19:39 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:56 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 08:54 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-01 10:30 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 08:13 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 12:18 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 07:34 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 14:10 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-29 23:36 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 16:04 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-30 11:22 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-30 01:09 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 08:08 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 21:16 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 22:13 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-02 13:33 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 08:11 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 07:36 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:51 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 08:19 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 10:18 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 11:16 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 11:49 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 12:37 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 13:15 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 14:05 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 15:53 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 18:03 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 10:50 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-28 10:50 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:11 -0500
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 07:46 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-28 16:50 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-01 11:18 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 05:37 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 14:02 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 07:05 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 16:04 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> - 2016-08-01 09:26 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 10:12 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-01 10:21 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 11:01 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-01 11:44 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-02 12:05 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-01 15:48 +0000
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-08-02 20:09 -0400
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-03 06:42 +0000
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-03 11:02 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> - 2016-08-03 03:15 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-03 11:53 +0000
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-03 08:57 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-03 10:52 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-03 11:09 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-03 08:51 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 10:51 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-01 13:13 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 05:27 -0700
Setting architectural features in stone Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-08-01 10:00 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-02 10:29 +0000
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 16:29 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 15:53 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 16:37 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-04 16:07 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 20:38 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-04 23:52 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:00 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-06 03:12 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:48 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-06 20:07 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 10:03 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-05 13:09 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:38 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 11:24 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 15:28 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 08:25 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 16:36 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 08:41 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 16:45 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 09:41 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 19:45 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 09:47 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 16:11 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:50 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-06 19:12 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 22:38 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 14:06 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 10:04 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 17:27 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:24 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 21:30 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 17:03 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 21:36 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:11 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 09:02 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:35 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-08 16:00 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:07 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 21:22 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 11:08 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-08 13:39 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 11:54 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 08:50 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 15:19 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 09:14 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 19:22 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-09 11:12 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-08-09 15:25 +0000
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 19:50 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 16:44 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 17:38 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 08:51 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 20:06 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 11:57 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 08:51 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 12:15 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-08 11:57 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-08 23:04 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 15:20 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 09:27 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 09:21 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 17:33 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 14:35 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 14:06 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 14:37 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 13:53 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 14:09 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 10:08 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 17:34 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 21:37 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-07 19:18 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 12:31 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-08 03:55 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-08 08:28 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-08 09:44 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-08 10:13 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 07:51 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:39 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 11:27 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 15:29 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 08:38 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:40 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-28 21:27 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 00:19 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-01 11:49 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-28 10:01 +0000
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-07-28 01:57 -0500
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 07:27 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-28 09:06 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 09:39 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-28 11:56 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-28 15:19 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 12:15 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 05:25 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-01 07:37 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 08:21 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:17 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-28 14:17 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-28 18:43 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-28 18:58 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-31 21:46 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:37 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 07:20 -0700
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnbn1h8ucd.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #91248 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:07:00 AM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> In modern terms, printf is part of the implementation, and its code is
>> free to depend on any compiler-specific behavior it likes. Ritchie
>> presumably would not have relied on that assumption if he were writing
>> code intended to run on one's-complement systems.
>
> Clearly Dennis Ritchie didn't expect that the code would work as written on
> platforms with 32-bit two's-complement integers (it would work just fine
> given ones'-complement or sign-magnitude integers of any size). On the
> other hand, I think he would have expected that it should work on any 16-bit
> system whose hardware uses two's-complement silent-wraparound semantics.
So he was clearly writing non-portable code that he knew would work on
the system and compiler he was using. I don't think you can
legitimately draw any deeper conclusions from that.
--
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 | Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 15:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nndlrh$8i2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91265 |
On Thursday July 28 2016 14:56, in comp.lang.c, "Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > supercat@casperkitty.com writes: >> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:07:00 AM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: > [...] >>> In modern terms, printf is part of the implementation, and its code is >>> free to depend on any compiler-specific behavior it likes. Ritchie >>> presumably would not have relied on that assumption if he were writing >>> code intended to run on one's-complement systems. >> >> Clearly Dennis Ritchie didn't expect that the code would work as written on >> platforms with 32-bit two's-complement integers (it would work just fine >> given ones'-complement or sign-magnitude integers of any size). On the >> other hand, I think he would have expected that it should work on any >> 16-bit system whose hardware uses two's-complement silent-wraparound >> semantics. > > So he was clearly writing non-portable code that he knew would work on > the system and compiler he was using. I don't think you can > legitimately draw any deeper conclusions from that. FWIW: "Input and output facilities are not part of the C language... Nevertheless, real programs do interact with their environment... 'the standard I/O library' [is] a set of functions designed to provide a standard I/O system for C programs. The functions are intended to present a convenient programming interface, yet reflect only operations that can be provided on most modern operating systems. The routines are efficient enough that users should seldom feel the need to circumvent them 'for efficiency' regardless of how critical the application. Finally, the routines are meant to be 'portable', in the sense that they will exist in compatible form on any system where C exists, and that programs which confine their system interactions to facilities provided by the standard library can be moved from one system to another essentially without change." Brian W. Kirnighan and Dennis M. Ritchie, "The C Programming Language" ((C) 1978 by Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated), Chapter 7 'Input and Output' introduction. -- Lew Pitcher "In Skills, We Trust" PGP public key available upon request
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnr3a9mxem.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #91233 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:52:34 AM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:> > Which "dialect" of 'C' supports constrained overflow? You talking > about >> the saturation overflow semantics of certain DSPs? > > How about the very first one? Dennis Ritchie's "printf" function given in > his documentation very clearly relies upon the fact that -(-327678) yields > -32768. [...] Like the paper says, he is documenting only the implementation on the PDP-11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 05:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9a4f48e-e680-4dfe-ba5b-37d56dca529b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #91411 |
On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:15:57 PM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote: > supercat writes: > Like the paper says, he is documenting only the implementation on > the PDP-11. Compilers for architectures which treat overflow differently from the PDP-11 would not be expected to treat overflow similarly. What is different about Intel's 1985 "Intel 80386 flat model" architecture that would suggest that compilers for it shouldn't behave like those for the PDP-11?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 07:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfntwf4k125.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #91467 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:15:57 PM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> supercat writes: >> Like the paper says, he is documenting only the implementation on >> the PDP-11. > > Compilers for architectures which treat overflow differently from the PDP-11 > would not be expected to treat overflow similarly. What is different about > Intel's 1985 "Intel 80386 flat model" architecture that would suggest that > compilers for it shouldn't behave like those for the PDP-11? This is an idiotic question. Obviously a paper explicitly treating only the PDP-11, and written in 1975, has nothing to say about what an Intel 80386 might do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 08:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5aa28bd9-216b-4182-ac7c-16a11cb242ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #91482 |
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:37:29 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote: > This is an idiotic question. Obviously a paper explicitly treating > only the PDP-11, and written in 1975, has nothing to say about > what an Intel 80386 might do. When C was ported to machines other than the PDP-11, it was generally expected that they would behave like the PDP-11 in cases where the hardware behaviors were similar, and different in cases where the hardware behaviors were different. What aspects of the 80386 hardware behavior differed from those of the PDP-11 in ways that would justify differences in compiler behaviors? The size of "int" would have changed from 16 bits to 32, but otherwise the natural platform behaviors are extremely similar. If someone in 1974 were asked to imagine a platform that was just like the PDP-11 but with 32-bit "int", they'd be imagining a platform that would--from a C perspective-- be just like the 80386.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 17:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af0c0c3b-a25d-44bf-9e03-1e32e11ac7f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #91178 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-4, jacob navia wrote: > ...C has a LARGE mass of followers and is now the first. I > quote from the IEEE Spectrum paper: > > http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-2016-top-programming-languages > > <quote> > After two years in second place, C has finally edged out Java for the > top spot. Staying in the top five, Python has swapped places with C++ to > take the No. 3 position, and C# has fallen out of the top five to be > replaced with R > <end quote> > > Good news! C is definitely my language of choice ... however, pure C is a little too constraining in some areas, relaxed in others. I prefer to write in C with some C++ syntax relaxations, and type tightening. One of my goals in CAlive is also to bring the basic class into a C-like language, without the rest of C++'s complexity. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 14:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160728141737.23212564@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #91178 |
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:36:55 +0200 jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: > Richard Heathfield said: > > There are at least two (and quite possibly more than two) people in > this group for whom C is their development language of choice: you, > and me. > > Any more? > > > Yes Richard, C has a LARGE mass of followers and is now the first. I > quote from the IEEE Spectrum paper: > > http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-2016-top-programming-languages > > <quote> > After two years in second place, C has finally edged out Java for the > top spot. Staying in the top five, Python has swapped places with C++ > to take the No. 3 position, and C# has fallen out of the top five to > be replaced with R > <end quote> > > Good news! > Not a chance that C is numero uno. C is most popular language in open source world, hands down, that is why , perhaps, canvass is biased towards open source...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 18:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nndcnq$6ec$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91223 |
Le 28/07/2016 à 14:17, Melzzzzz a écrit : > > Not a chance that C is numero uno. C is most popular language in open > source world, hands down, that is why , perhaps, canvass is biased > towards open source... > Well, IEEE Spectrum is a serious magazine. They describe openly the methodology to make the ranking of computer languages. Did you read the article? The methodology description? Of course not. You just do not like C and you post some nonsense here as it would impress anyone. Note that C++ went from 3rd to fourth place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 18:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160728185830.4c242086@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #91249 |
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:43:38 +0200 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: > Le 28/07/2016 à 14:17, Melzzzzz a écrit : > > > > > Not a chance that C is numero uno. C is most popular language in > > open source world, hands down, that is why , perhaps, canvass is > > biased towards open source... > > > > Well, IEEE Spectrum is a serious magazine. They describe openly the > methodology to make the ranking of computer languages. > > Did you read the article? The methodology description? I'll read it now... well they say online sources... > > Of course not. You just do not like C and you post some nonsense here > as it would impress anyone. I don't like counting chars... > > Note that C++ went from 3rd to fourth place. Only thing that I count are job offers.... https://generalassemb.ly/blog/the-8-most-in-demand-programming-languages-of-2016/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 21:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nnlkj3$9kt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91178 |
Le 27/07/2016 à 22:36, jacob navia a écrit : > Richard Heathfield said: > > There are at least two (and quite possibly more than two) people in this > group for whom C is their development language of choice: you, and me. > > Any more? > > > Yes Richard, C has a LARGE mass of followers and is now the first. I > quote from the IEEE Spectrum paper: > > http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-2016-top-programming-languages > > > <quote> > After two years in second place, C has finally edged out Java for the > top spot. Staying in the top five, Python has swapped places with C++ to > take the No. 3 position, and C# has fallen out of the top five to be > replaced with R > <end quote> > > Good news! > Note that nobody commented about the main subject of this post. I made the mistake of answering a post inquiring about "constrained overflow" and "type punning" and ALL posts later started threads about details of overflow and whatever. There are very few practicioners of the C language in this discussion group. Most people here believe C++ is the solution to all problems, or lisp, or Haskell, whatever. I am no "language chauvinist", I like C for technical reasons (see my post earlier "Advantages of C"). But it is saddening to watch that in a newsgroup dedicated the the C language people talk about ANYTHING but the C language and its future development.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 16:37 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <e08208F9uiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91421 |
On 08/ 1/16 07:46 AM, jacobnavia wrote: > > Note that nobody commented about the main subject of this post. I made > the mistake of answering a post inquiring about "constrained overflow" > and "type punning" and ALL posts later started threads about details of > overflow and whatever. > > There are very few practicioners of the C language in this discussion > group. Most people here believe C++ is the solution to all problems, or > lisp, or Haskell, whatever. I'm sure most people who post here would count as "practitioners of the C language". I'm also pretty sure that they don't use C exclusively in their day to day work. I don't, my current project uses C (kernel space), C++ (user space) with Python and Lua for scripting. > I am no "language chauvinist", I like C for technical reasons (see my > post earlier "Advantages of C"). But it is saddening to watch that in a > newsgroup dedicated the the C language people talk about ANYTHING but > the C language and its future development. That is a bit of a bugger. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 07:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c0be39c-b58a-480e-b2c3-a2f7547495fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #91421 |
On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:46:50 PM UTC-5, jacobnavia wrote:
> Note that nobody commented about the main subject of this post. I made
> the mistake of answering a post inquiring about "constrained overflow"
> and "type punning" and ALL posts later started threads about details of
> overflow and whatever.
I am genuinely interested in the question of how much code written using
such brilliant constructs as:
void copy_if_n_is_nonzero(void *dest, void *src, size_t n)
{
if (n) memcpy(dest, src, n);
}
void complement_four_bytes_at_32_bit_aligned_address(uint8_t *p)
{
/* Note that because of effective type rules with memcpy, it
is necessary to ensure that code doesn't accidentally transfer
the effective type of the buffer to *p, so we malloc out buffer
to prevent it from having a declared type. A compiler with a
sufficiently-advanced optimizer will notice that the malloc is
precisely balanced by the free() and replace them with a stack
allocation. */
uint32_t *temp = malloc(sizeof (uint32_t));
memcpy(temp, p, sizeof (uint32_t));
temp = ~temp;
memcpy(p, temp, sizeof (uint32_t));
free(temp);
}
rather than:
void copy_if_n_is_nonzero(void *dest, void *src, size_t n)
{
memcpy(dest, src, n);
}
void complement_four_bytes_at_32_bit_aligned_address(uint8_t *p)
{
*(uint32_t*)p ^= 0xFFFFFFFF;
}
Until 2000 or so, compilers for general-purpose 32-bit microcomputers
would generate code for the second function in each pair which would
be semantically equivalent to the first form of each in all cases
implied by the function name, including those where the Standard would
impose no requirements. Given the earlier forms, they would have
generated code that was functionally equivalent, but almost certainly
bigger and slower.
I'm curious whether more programs are written in a dialect where the
first form would be the more effective way of indicating the appropriate
semantics, and how many are written in a dialect where the second form
would be.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web