Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
GCC vs Clang The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> - 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-07-22 20:17 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 21:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:22 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:20 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:56 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-22 15:27 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 00:59 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 20:33 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:18 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 12:54 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 13:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 22:54 +0200
Killfiles: Learn how they work. They are your friend! (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-07-23 21:14 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 05:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 15:43 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 07:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 22:08 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:21 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 14:38 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 09:30 -0500
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:41 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:33 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 07:46 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:02 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:25 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2016-07-22 20:42 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:50 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-23 19:53 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:50 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:07 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 17:16 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 07:27 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 08:29 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:29 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:44 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 22:18 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:43 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-23 00:02 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:34 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-10 02:18 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-08-10 15:31 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:31 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:14 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:57 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:24 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 15:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 16:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 16:31 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 17:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-26 07:52 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 08:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:23 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:17 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:56 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:17 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 10:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-27 20:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:29 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 12:08 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:43 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:32 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 13:23 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 17:13 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:19 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 08:28 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-26 02:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 08:41 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:37 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 12:07 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-25 22:57 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-26 14:08 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:18 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-27 22:01 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-28 09:56 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:38 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:38 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:54 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:16 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 23:55 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 07:20 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:47 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> - 2016-08-09 21:15 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-10 12:52 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 06:59 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 16:52 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 11:22 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-10 11:31 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 14:01 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 07:12 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 17:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:40 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 09:55 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 22:51 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 17:52 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 11:49 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 20:28 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 13:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-08-10 18:14 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 21:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 10:35 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 11:00 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 18:54 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 20:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 19:53 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:41 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 20:21 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 21:46 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 20:49 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:57 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 23:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 09:07 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 13:47 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 16:29 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 23:00 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 15:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 18:13 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-15 00:14 -0700
Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 08:04 +0000
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 01:15 -0700
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 07:27 -0600
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 15:00 +0100
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 10:29 -0400
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 10:22 -0500
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-15 17:46 +0200
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 17:41 +0100
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 11:11 -0600
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 13:28 -0400
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:05 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 18:00 +0000
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:34 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:48 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:56 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:10 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:18 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 08:44 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 09:38 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-17 08:24 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-17 17:44 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-15 17:25 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:16 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:30 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:16 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 07:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-14 18:05 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-14 20:18 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 11:54 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:05 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 21:16 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:37 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 20:59 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:58 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-14 11:34 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:07 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-14 12:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 14:03 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-15 09:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:46 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:45 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-11 15:16 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:02 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:20 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:58 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 17:05 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-11 23:24 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:58 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 16:08 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 00:21 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 17:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:23 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 11:43 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-13 08:37 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 13:58 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-11 16:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-12 01:12 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-12 20:15 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:29 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-12 12:45 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-12 04:30 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 14:49 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 15:03 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:22 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 09:14 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 10:23 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 11:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:19 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:53 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:55 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 20:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noij85$1io$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92150 |
On 11/08/2016 20:41, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 11/08/2016 20:11, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> The standard of even the basic documentation is abysmal. It should not >>>> be necessary to guess these basic facts or find them out by accident. If >>>> you think that's whining, then you're right! >>> >>> Why are you complaining about it **here**??? >> >> Because people *here* keep telling me the problem is my ineptitude. > > Is that why you haven't asked on the Clang mailing lists? Actually using clang is not so important. If it doesn't work I've got 4 other compilers. However /I/ think the way it's presented is poor and could be much better, but people here disagree with that and are always saying the problem lies with me. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk2fnqd4z.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92153 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/08/2016 20:41, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 11/08/2016 20:11, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>> The standard of even the basic documentation is abysmal. It should not
>>>>> be necessary to guess these basic facts or find them out by accident. If
>>>>> you think that's whining, then you're right!
>>>>
>>>> Why are you complaining about it **here**???
>>>
>>> Because people *here* keep telling me the problem is my ineptitude.
>>
>> Is that why you haven't asked on the Clang mailing lists?
>
> Actually using clang is not so important. If it doesn't work I've got 4
> other compilers.
>
> However /I/ think the way it's presented is poor and could be much
> better, but people here disagree with that and are always saying the
> problem lies with me.
I think some of it does. Your failure to distinguish between a
compiler and an implementation, for example, seems to have made
it more difficult for you to understand *why* there are problems
getting Clang working on Windows, which inevitably makes it harder
to solve and/or work around those problems. And your habit of
complaining in comp.lang.c about things that are not C language
issues is not helpful.
But I've explicitly acknowledged that, based on the incomplete
information available to me, it does appear that getting Clang
working on Windows may be more difficult than it should be. There
are installers that will give you a working C implementation that
includes gcc as its compiler. There probably *should* be similar
installers that use clang rather than gcc. If there aren't, or
if they're inordinately difficult to find or use, that's a genuine
problem (assuming you have needs that are satisfied by clang but not
by gcc). (I note that clang is newer than gcc. I also note that I
don't know whether the maintainers of clang even care about Windows.)
--
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 | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 21:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noikml$5vj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92155 |
Le 11/08/2016 à 22:11, Keith Thompson a écrit :
> your habit of
> complaining in comp.lang.c about things that are not C language
> issues is not helpful.
C compilers are always on topic here.
Reason: The compiler is the primary tool for the C language.
I repeat a previous email that you ignored:
1) You are nobody to say what is on topic here or not.
2) C Compilers are OF COURSE on topic and also complaining about them
if somebody feels like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 20:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bn0zozm3.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #92156 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: > I repeat a previous email that you ignored: > > 1) You are nobody to say what is on topic here or not. You will never convince Keith of this. > 2) C Compilers are OF COURSE on topic and also complaining about them > if somebody feels like. Naturally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnfuqbqb1d.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92156 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 11/08/2016 à 22:11, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> your habit of
>> complaining in comp.lang.c about things that are not C language
>> issues is not helpful.
> C compilers are always on topic here.
>
> Reason: The compiler is the primary tool for the C language.
>
> I repeat a previous email that you ignored:
Yes, I did. Why would you expect me not to?
> 1) You are nobody to say what is on topic here or not.
And you are?
> 2) C Compilers are OF COURSE on topic and also complaining about them
> if somebody feels like.
I didn't even say his complaints were off-topic (though I admit that
I implied it). I said they were was unhelpful. Do you disagree?
Has complaining about Clang Windows installers here solved BartC's
problems?
So ... your position is that complaining about *any* C compiler is
on-topic here? I'll keep that in mind.
--
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 | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noipkl$ojj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92159 |
Le 11/08/2016 à 22:57, Keith Thompson a écrit : > jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: >> Le 11/08/2016 à 22:11, Keith Thompson a écrit : >>> your habit of >>> complaining in comp.lang.c about things that are not C language >>> issues is not helpful. >> C compilers are always on topic here. >> >> Reason: The compiler is the primary tool for the C language. >> >> I repeat a previous email that you ignored: > > Yes, I did. Why would you expect me not to? > Well, a reasonable individual would have read that sentence: >> Reason: The compiler is the primary tool for the C language. And would have either accepted that or somehow tried to argue his position. His majesty impersonated mr thompson of course not! Yes, I should have expected that. >> 1) You are nobody to say what is on topic here or not. > > And you are? > I have never intervened here by saying "off topic" excuse me. It is you that constantly comes with attempts to silence discussions as "off topic". >> 2) C Compilers are OF COURSE on topic and also complaining about them >> if somebody feels like. > > I didn't even say his complaints were off-topic (though I admit that > I implied it). Nice admission. What is the poinbt then? I said they were was unhelpful. Do you disagree? Of course they are not unhelpful! > Has complaining about Clang Windows installers here solved BartC's > problems? > It has made at least me, maybe other people reading this thread, aware of those problems, and this complexity freak-out that is washing away all reasonable assumptions that grows like a cancer disgusts me profoundly. Monstruosities like cygtwin or the modern c++ compilers are a nightmare of complexity. Trying to SIMPLIFY THINGS is a good thing! > So ... your position is that complaining about *any* C compiler is > on-topic here? I'll keep that in mind. > Keep that in mind thompson. Prepare your arms! Then, start complaining about lcc-win as you always have done in the last years. Call all regulars in an extended freak-out war against lcc-win! It will nopt work, as it hasn't worked in the last 10 years mr thompson. I repeat that you do not have ANY right to bully people off to another newsgroup because C compilers are ON TOPIC HERE WHY? >> Reason: The compiler is the primary tool for the C language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 09:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nop8s6$adh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92165 |
On 11/08/16 22:10, jacobnavia wrote: <snip> > I repeat that you do not have ANY right to bully people off to another > newsgroup because C compilers are ON TOPIC HERE As a compiler vendor, you have a conflict of interest. There are individual newsgroups for discussing individual compilers. There is even one devoted to your own compiler. The people who use this newsgroup decided some time ago, in a discussion on topicality, that it should remain strictly about ISO C itself and (for historical reasons) K&R C. Discussions about compilers are therefore off-topic in this group and should be taken to groups where those compilers are topical. > WHY? > >>> Reason: The compiler is the primary tool for the C language. That's not a good enough reason for something to be topical here. Otherwise, the minutiae of English grammar would be topical because English is the primary language in which the C language is defined, PDF would be topical because it's the primary vehicle for distribution of the C Standard, Linux would be topical because it's the primary platform on which people use C, and so on and so on. All of these subjects have /other newsgroups/ where they can be and indeed are discussed. /This/ newsgroup is about the C language. Nobody can stop you flogging your compiler in here, but you do so in the face of the expressed wishes of the group, and that is not good PR. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nopbc3$gfa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92237 |
Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > The people who use this newsgroup decided some time ago, in a discussion > on topicality, that it should remain strictly about ISO C itself and > (for historical reasons) K&R C. Discussions about compilers are > therefore off-topic in this group and should be taken to groups where > those compilers are topical. I am posting here since (at least) 1995 and I do not remember such a decision. You will have to show the messages concerned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lneg5roz7c.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92238 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>> The people who use this newsgroup decided some time ago, in a discussion
>> on topicality, that it should remain strictly about ISO C itself and
>> (for historical reasons) K&R C. Discussions about compilers are
>> therefore off-topic in this group and should be taken to groups where
>> those compilers are topical.
>
> I am posting here since (at least) 1995 and I do not remember such a
> decision. You will have to show the messages concerned.
On 2007-09-29, Richard Heathfield posted an article titled
"Should we broaden the topicality of this group?"
available at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.c/MGgA-vbDDUM/c3fzO42AQqYJ
Message-ID: <Q4GdnReyhdEy0mPbnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com>
On 2007-10-02, he posted a summary with the title
"Topicality discussion - summary".
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.c/MsQ1jcAwc0Q/i0fOy16JofoJ
Message-ID: <acOdnb474quom5_anZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>
jacob, you do not appear to have participated in either thread.
I don't know whether you were active here at the time.
--
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 | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 16:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3894e5bc-4092-1928-8b64-8edb13707534@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #92256 |
On 08/14/2016 04:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: >> Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >>> The people who use this newsgroup decided some time ago, in a discussion >>> on topicality, that it should remain strictly about ISO C itself and >>> (for historical reasons) K&R C. Discussions about compilers are >>> therefore off-topic in this group and should be taken to groups where >>> those compilers are topical. >> >> I am posting here since (at least) 1995 and I do not remember such a >> decision. You will have to show the messages concerned. > > On 2007-09-29, Richard Heathfield posted an article titled > "Should we broaden the topicality of this group?" > available at > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.c/MGgA-vbDDUM/c3fzO42AQqYJ > Message-ID: <Q4GdnReyhdEy0mPbnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com> > > On 2007-10-02, he posted a summary with the title > "Topicality discussion - summary". > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.c/MsQ1jcAwc0Q/i0fOy16JofoJ > Message-ID: <acOdnb474quom5_anZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com> > > jacob, you do not appear to have participated in either thread. > I don't know whether you were active here at the time. According to Google Groups, the first thread ran during 2007-09-07/10-09. Jacob did contribute to the thread (though not to the topicality discussion itself) during 2007-10-06/07. Therefore, his failure to get involved in the topicality discussion was not due to inactivity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noqm4m$r02$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92259 |
Le 14/08/2016 à 22:29, James R. Kuyper a écrit : > On 08/14/2016 04:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> jacob, you do not appear to have participated in either thread. >> I don't know whether you were active here at the time. I have been always "active" thompson, but did not participate in all threads started by you and mr heathfield since I know you already. Your goal is to make this discussion group a caricature of the retrograde c programmer. Even ISO C was too "modern" for you. A long fight against C99 (not portable, do not use it, etc) ensued, that I lost in the few early years of that decade until you and mr heathfield changed their mind and accepted what I was saying for years. Without acknowledging anything of course. > > According to Google Groups, the first thread ran during > 2007-09-07/10-09. Jacob did contribute to the thread (though not to the > topicality discussion itself) during 2007-10-06/07. Therefore, his > failure to get involved in the topicality discussion was not due to > inactivity. > I was continuosly harassed because operator overloading (I was selling my own "language" and wanted, as a "VENDOR" to do a customer "lock in" into my evil compiler). They won, the regulars put almost all technical people off and now in this group nobody discusses technical matters any more since there is always the topic police saying nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2651a91-3527-475d-90c9-876ee6b108da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92262 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 23:00:15 UTC+2 użytkownik jacobnavia napisał: > Le 14/08/2016 à 22:29, James R. Kuyper a écrit : > > On 08/14/2016 04:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > >> jacob, you do not appear to have participated in either thread. > >> I don't know whether you were active here at the time. > > I have been always "active" thompson, but did not participate in all > threads started by you and mr heathfield since I know you already. > > Your goal is to make this discussion group a caricature of the > retrograde c programmer. > they are worse, ou overvalue them they are not programmers here on this group - they are some group of psychopatologist who live here - they build they psychopatological house here.. trouble is it is mega boring mega stupid mega agressive mege buffed mega stupid again - it is really worth to get them off - if they like to live in thet crap they may build ovn "adore circle" not expand it to more normal people > Even ISO C was too "modern" for you. A long fight against C99 (not > portable, do not use it, etc) ensued, that I lost in the few early years > of that decade until you and mr heathfield changed their mind and > accepted what I was saying for years. > > Without acknowledging anything of course. > > > > > According to Google Groups, the first thread ran during > > 2007-09-07/10-09. Jacob did contribute to the thread (though not to the > > topicality discussion itself) during 2007-10-06/07. Therefore, his > > failure to get involved in the topicality discussion was not due to > > inactivity. > > > > I was continuosly harassed because operator overloading (I was selling > my own "language" and wanted, as a "VENDOR" to do a customer "lock in" > into my evil compiler). > > They won, the regulars put almost all technical people off and now in > this group nobody discusses technical matters any more since there is > always the topic police saying nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a27c28be-de75-4d11-8d0e-d76704811eb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92262 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 23:00:15 UTC+2 użytkownik jacobnavia napisał: > They won, the regulars put almost all technical people off and now in > this group nobody discusses technical matters any more since there is > always the topic police saying nonsense. you gett them, i wonder if my few words of critique will change something [im quite sure it will not change, i think bullshiters will bulshit further becouse they are just 'impotent' to anything else.. but thats why this group is braindead, yawn )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln60r3oug6.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92262 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 14/08/2016 à 22:29, James R. Kuyper a écrit :
>> On 08/14/2016 04:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> jacob, you do not appear to have participated in either thread.
>>> I don't know whether you were active here at the time.
>
> I have been always "active" thompson, but did not participate in all
> threads started by you and mr heathfield since I know you already.
>
> Your goal is to make this discussion group a caricature of the
> retrograde c programmer.
Nope.
> Even ISO C was too "modern" for you. A long fight against C99 (not
> portable, do not use it, etc) ensued, that I lost in the few early years
> of that decade until you and mr heathfield changed their mind and
> accepted what I was saying for years.
I never "fought" against C99. I *liked* C99 better than I liked C90.
All I ever did was point out that support for C99 was not yet
widespread, and that code that depended on C99 features was less
portable than code that used only C90 features. You, by developing
a C99 compiler, helped to change that. But Microsoft's C compiler,
as I recall, still has only minimal support for C99. Yes, there
are other C compilers for Windows, but not everyone has the luxury
of ignoring them.
I also, fairly consistently I think, said that if someone was willing to
accept the limited portability, they should feel free to go ahead and
use C99 features.
And you've repeatedly lied about what I've said, and never apologized
for it.
Feel free to cite something I've posted here in opposition to C99.
(Pointing out that it was less portable than C90 does not count as
"opposition".)
Then again, even if I had "fought" against C99, surely that would be
a topical discussion, don't you agree?
> Without acknowledging anything of course.
Of course. (That was sarcasm.)
>> According to Google Groups, the first thread ran during
>> 2007-09-07/10-09. Jacob did contribute to the thread (though not to the
>> topicality discussion itself) during 2007-10-06/07. Therefore, his
>> failure to get involved in the topicality discussion was not due to
>> inactivity.
>
> I was continuosly harassed because operator overloading (I was selling
> my own "language" and wanted, as a "VENDOR" to do a customer "lock in"
> into my evil compiler).
You seem to be offended by the word "vendor". I neither know nor
care why. It is not intended as an insult. Some of us have pointed
out that operator overloading, as implemented in your compiler, is
an extension, not part of standard C, and that code that depends
on lcc-win's operator overloading will not be portable to other
compilers. We've tended to point that out when you've been unclear
about it yourself.
> They won, the regulars put almost all technical people off and now in
> this group nobody discusses technical matters any more since there is
> always the topic police saying nonsense.
I have two purposes in mind when I note that I think something is
off-topic. One is to avoid actual discussion of C becoming buried
under discussions of things other than C, something that has happened
to other newsgroups. (That's why I've asked you and others not to
discuss religion here.) The other is to help questioners to find a
place where they're questions are more likely to get good answers.
For example, questions about POSIX-specific features are more likely
to get good answers on comp.unix.programmer than on comp.lang.c.
And when I do so, you insult me.
--
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 | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 18:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <191f3db9-092a-15ff-0635-b98deece5f0f@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #92265 |
On 08/14/2016 06:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: >> Le 14/08/2016 à 22:29, James R. Kuyper a écrit : ... >> my own "language" and wanted, as a "VENDOR" ... > > You seem to be offended by the word "vendor". Jacob, I've asked this several times before, but you've never answered. Do you consider "vendor" to be an insult? If so, why? I don't consider it to be an insult, and am at a loss to come up with a plausible reason why someone might so consider it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 00:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7dd0a7ca-570e-4c07-a358-a33ad228f4fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92268 |
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:13:41 PM UTC+1, James R. Kuyper wrote: > On 08/14/2016 06:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Jacob, I've asked this several times before, but you've never answered. > Do you consider "vendor" to be an insult? If so, why? I don't consider > it to be an insult, and am at a loss to come up with a plausible reason > why someone might so consider it. > There are words like "hawker" and "pedlar" in English which refer to someone of low social status who supports himself by selling goods. They are demeaning and sometimes extended to more established businessmen. "Vendor" isn't one of those words, but Jacob is French, it might be similar to French word of similar connotations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 08:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) |
| Message-ID | <nort1s$733$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #92279 |
In article <7dd0a7ca-570e-4c07-a358-a33ad228f4fe@googlegroups.com>, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:13:41 PM UTC+1, James R. Kuyper wrote: >> On 08/14/2016 06:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> >> Jacob, I've asked this several times before, but you've never answered. >> Do you consider "vendor" to be an insult? If so, why? I don't consider >> it to be an insult, and am at a loss to come up with a plausible reason >> why someone might so consider it. >> >There are words like "hawker" and "pedlar" in English which refer >to someone of low social status who supports himself by selling >goods. They are demeaning and sometimes extended to more established >businessmen. "Vendor" isn't one of those words, but Jacob is French, >it might be similar to French word of similar connotations. Actually, it *does* - and your analysis is correct. In the US, at least, the most common phrase associated with the word "vendor" is "street vendor" and it brings to mind the guys who sell hot dogs from a cart on the streets of NYC. Admittedly, the term is also used frequently in the software arena (the phrase "software vendor" is used - but is generally used in a "tongue in cheek" fashion), but I've no doubt that Keith does intentionally use the word as a way to needle Jacob. Note that Keith certainly knows how to push Jacob's buttons, and Jacob, in turn, never fails to respond on cue. Sad, but nonetheless entertaining, to watch this play out - over and over and over. P.S. And yes, I do want to emphasize that what Keith is doing is subtle, and that, like Mr. Trump in his various public ramblings, Keith is careful to maintain a veneer of deniability (however thin) in his barbs. -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following web address: http://www.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Voltaire
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 01:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) |
| Message-ID | <70b8a3b4-e31e-4724-9294-4ac047adf73a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92281 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 10:04:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Kenny McCormack napisał: > In article <7dd0a7ca-570e-4c07-a358-a33ad228f4fe@googlegroups.com>, > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > >On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:13:41 PM UTC+1, James R. Kuyper wrote: > >> On 08/14/2016 06:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> > >> Jacob, I've asked this several times before, but you've never answered. > >> Do you consider "vendor" to be an insult? If so, why? I don't consider > >> it to be an insult, and am at a loss to come up with a plausible reason > >> why someone might so consider it. > >> > >There are words like "hawker" and "pedlar" in English which refer > >to someone of low social status who supports himself by selling > >goods. They are demeaning and sometimes extended to more established > >businessmen. "Vendor" isn't one of those words, but Jacob is French, > >it might be similar to French word of similar connotations. > > Actually, it *does* - and your analysis is correct. In the US, at least, > the most common phrase associated with the word "vendor" is "street vendor" > and it brings to mind the guys who sell hot dogs from a cart on the streets > of NYC. Admittedly, the term is also used frequently in the software arena > (the phrase "software vendor" is used - but is generally used in a "tongue > in cheek" fashion), but I've no doubt that Keith does intentionally use the > word as a way to needle Jacob. > > Note that Keith certainly knows how to push Jacob's buttons, and Jacob, in > turn, never fails to respond on cue. Sad, but nonetheless entertaining, to > watch this play out - over and over and over. > > P.S. And yes, I do want to emphasize that what Keith is doing is subtle, > and that, like Mr. Trump in his various public ramblings, Keith is careful > to maintain a veneer of deniability (however thin) in his barbs. > in may ow diagnosis thompson is especially primitive brickass buffon - he often call people troll and he owns far more the qualities of a troll than anything else 1) brick ass 2) slow down thinking 3) not taking care on anything of his dumb self 40 pressure on overtrolling anybody with his ass navia has also medicore or weak qualities but at least is not 2 tone brickass .. most people here are clowns as just most people in the world are clowns, psychologicale the most sane is bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) |
| Message-ID | <np1tjo$489$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92282 |
Le 15/08/2016 à 10:15, fir a écrit : > navia has also medicore or weak qualities but at least is not 2 tone brickass .. Well, thank you... :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 07:27 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" |
| Message-ID | <1bbn0u5fij.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #92281 |
In the academic environment where I spent my career, there is absolutely no negative connotation to the term "vendor". Everyone who sells anything to the university is a vendor. My impression is that the corporate world is the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web