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 | 2016-06-18 08:39 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 364 — 23 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 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 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
Page 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 01:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f7a2a8b-9b2d-4c04-b640-bab70f6f5cf7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89370 |
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 9:12:57 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 16/06/16 18:06, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Malcolm, "structured programming" means "the program code has a > structure that can be seen and understood". Subroutines, or "functions" > as they are known in C, are often part of that - but not necessarily. > Blocks are almost always part of the structure. In most circumstances, > while or for loops are more structured than loops made from gotos. > The term is sometimes misused in that sense, largely because structured programming works well in most cases and we know that it works. If you break the paradigm, the result is not "unstructured programming" but a different way of organising code. > > Functions don't have to have a single point of entry and exit in order > to be part of structured programming. Coroutines are a structure > component that have multiple entry and exit points, as are iterators. > So they are not structured programming constructs. At the tender age of 11 I was given a little plastic stencil template with funny shapes in it. There was a circle, a diamond, and a box. The circles represent the block entry an exit points, the diamonds a decision branch, and the boxes "blocks". There were also symbols for IO. The crucial point was that each box was entered at the top, and exited at the bottom. And it did something. There were no special symbols for iteration in the scheme (that was the diamonds). > > There are no size limitations, no requirements for "balance", no > limitations on recursion. If you can understand the structure of the > code, and understand the control flow, it is structured programming. If > you can't figure out where and why code jumps here and there, it is > unstructured. > The crucial point, however, was that boxes nest. You could expand a box, and draw another little flow chart inside it. That is structured programming. The essential characteristic is that blocks have one point of entry, one point of exit, and they nest. All you need is diamonds, start stop and IO, and you have a complete system for notation of a subset of programs that can calculate anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 11:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nk0ecd$pfe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89373 |
On 17/06/16 10:31, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 9:12:57 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 16/06/16 18:06, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> Malcolm, "structured programming" means "the program code has a >> structure that can be seen and understood". Subroutines, or "functions" >> as they are known in C, are often part of that - but not necessarily. >> Blocks are almost always part of the structure. In most circumstances, >> while or for loops are more structured than loops made from gotos. >> > The term is sometimes misused in that sense, largely because > structured programming works well in most cases and we know that > it works. If you break the paradigm, the result is not "unstructured > programming" but a different way of organising code. >> >> Functions don't have to have a single point of entry and exit in order >> to be part of structured programming. Coroutines are a structure >> component that have multiple entry and exit points, as are iterators. >> > So they are not structured programming constructs. > > At the tender age of 11 I was given a little plastic stencil template > with funny shapes in it. There was a circle, a diamond, and a box. > > The circles represent the block entry an exit points, the diamonds > a decision branch, and the boxes "blocks". There were also symbols > for IO. The crucial point was that each box was entered at the top, > and exited at the bottom. And it did something. There were no special > symbols for iteration in the scheme (that was the diamonds). >> >> There are no size limitations, no requirements for "balance", no >> limitations on recursion. If you can understand the structure of the >> code, and understand the control flow, it is structured programming. If >> you can't figure out where and why code jumps here and there, it is >> unstructured. >> > The crucial point, however, was that boxes nest. You could expand > a box, and draw another little flow chart inside it. > > That is structured programming. The essential characteristic is that > blocks have one point of entry, one point of exit, and they nest. No, that is "flow diagrams". They are useful, but they are not the be all and end all of structured programming. Indeed, flow diagrams were often used to help create unstructured programs. > > All you need is diamonds, start stop and IO, and you have a complete > system for notation of a subset of programs that can calculate > anything. > All you need is a Turing machine, and you can calculate anything. But Turing machine programs are seldom considered "structured programming".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 08:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnh9crvn27.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89370 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> There are no size limitations, no requirements for "balance", no
> limitations on recursion. If you can understand the structure of the
> code, and understand the control flow, it is structured programming. If
> you can't figure out where and why code jumps here and there, it is
> unstructured.
If you can understand a function whose control flow is implemented as a
tangled mess of gotos, that doesn't make it "structured programming".
Being able to understand the structure of code is the *goal* of
structured programming, not its definition.
--
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 | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 17:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Kiki's killfile (Was: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released) |
| Message-ID | <njum5p$o1f$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #89291 |
In article <lnmvmlw2p0.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: ... >Let's call it "Malcolm-structured-programming", and the rest of us >can ignore it and move on. Really, dude! Haven't you killfiled him (Malcolm) yet? Wouldn't it be a lot better for all of us if you just "ignore(d) it and move(d) on" for any/all of Malcolm's posts? -- A Catholic woman tells her husband to buy Viagra. A Jewish woman tells her husband to buy Pfizer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 20:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5765ab1c.29972046@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #89256 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 10:24:16 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > > On re-reading Malcolm's description, I see it says nothing about the > > internals of a function except that it has one point of entry and one > > point of exit. So a program in which each function is a tangled mass of > > goto statements would be "structured" under Malcolm's definition. > > > Yes it would. > Except the functions are meant to be quite short, the "balanced tree" > requirement. So the functions can only be a small tangled mess. That does not follow. It's perfecly possible for a balanced tree to be full of unmanageable monstrosities, as long as the monstrosities are spread evenly along each level of the tree. Besides, neither in the normal definition of a call graph nor in the Malcolm-definition of a call graph is it reasonable to expect it to be a balanced tree at all. Most programs consist of a short pre-amble, a repetitive mid-part, and often but not always a short post-amble. That's not a balanced tree by any normal definition of that term - though maybe there's a Malcolm-balanced Malcolm-tree you haven't told us about? > I was talking mainly about structured programming and recursion, > however. The Wiki article is mostly about the historical development > of the idea and whilst it's worth reading, it doesn't give you > a good sense of what is "structured programming" versus other > paradigms. Structured programming isn't a paradigm, unless you count "doing it right" and "doing it wrong" as paradigms. _Imperative_ programming is C's paradigm, but you can program structuredly in functional and propositional paradigms as much as you can in imperative languages. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 16:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nk4ffj$1u4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89557 |
Richard Bos wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: <snip> > > Structured programming isn't a paradigm, unless you count "doing it > right" and "doing it wrong" as paradigms. _Imperative_ programming is > C's paradigm, but you can program structuredly in functional and > propositional paradigms as much as you can in imperative languages. > Imperative programming is frequently an anti-pattern*. You can always use state machines, OO techniques, even self-assembling structure as appropriate. *data point - the Microsoft Win32 API.... > Richard > -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 23:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <njsi53$17v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89200 |
On 15/06/16 22:27, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 1:04:42 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> >>> And if your "in many ways" was anything but a rhetorical device, what >>> are some of the other many ways in which it is an exception to >>> structured programming? (It's a serious question -- I don't know very >>> much about structured programming in any formal sense.) >>> >> A structured program consists of a tree of subroutines (functions in C terminology), >> which is meant to be roughly balanced - you can't turn a list of commands >> into a structured program by drawing lines every so often and converting the >> step to a call, and you can't turn a list of commands into a structured program >> by saying that each command is actually a subroutine (which it often is in >> a lower level sense). it's got to be roughly balanced, non-degenerate tree. >> >> Each function has got to do something which makes sense from a human >> programmer's point of view. usually that means that the function is potentially >> re-usable. Even if in fact it is only called once, in a slightly >> different version of >> the program, it could be called from more than one place. >> >> Each subroutine has only one point of entry and one point of exit (C disguises >> the last requirement, but in fact most compilers enforce it at the machine level) >> and it always returns control to the point where it was called. It is allowed >> local variables, and globals are discouraged (I'd say ban, but then I draw a >> distinction between procedures and functions, and conventional ideas about >> structured programming do not). >> >> Subroutines have to be known. In C, this means you can pass a function pointer, >> but you must do so by name, as the function is called. You can't pass a function >> pointer whose identity is determined by some logic or other. >> >> So the structured program is potential call graph, whose properties we know >> at compile time. > > I'm sorry but this is just silly. You've made up a bunch of stuff and > called it structured programming. All of the most basic attributes of > structured programs are missing from this description and you've pulled > whole bunch of other criteria out of thin air. It's not all wrong (I > can find two attributes of what I know as structured programming in all > of this) but there nothing that can be reasonably discussed. > >> So what about recursion? >> >> It's clear that it violates some of these properties, though not in such a serious >> way that it destroys any notion of structured programming. >> >> The call graph is no longer likely to be a balanced tree. >> We can't determine maximum stack usage at compile time. >> We can't determine whether the program halts easily. (Most structured >> programs can be show to halt quite easily, though you can of course write >> a structured program which defeats this). >> It complicates the idea that "a function does something discrete", because >> we now have to specify if we are talking about one pass through the code or >> the entire call. >> It changes the graph. There is no longer a strict hierarchy of upper >> to lower. This last point is the only part of Malcolm's post that makes sense to me. In a non-recursive structured program, the call graph is an acyclic directed graph. In a recursive program, there are cycles. (In an unstructured program, there are no rules about code flow - it may not even make sense to talk about a call graph). > > I started to address these points individually but I don't think there > is much point. You've just made up some criteria and declared that > recursive programs don't meet them. Showing where they do would be > pointless since the initial criteria are just your own invention in the > first place. > > <snip> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 17:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <njshmn$vh4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89169 |
On 6/15/2016 12:33 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> [...]
> A structured program consists of a tree of subroutines (functions in C terminology),
> which is meant to be roughly balanced - you can't turn a list of commands
> into a structured program by drawing lines every so often and converting the
> step to a call, and you can't turn a list of commands into a structured program
> by saying that each command is actually a subroutine (which it often is in
> a lower level sense). it's got to be roughly balanced, non-degenerate tree.
Balderdash.
#include <stdio.h>
static void print(int value) {
printf("value = %d\n", value);
}
int main(int agrc, char *argv[]) {
printf("Hello, world!");
print(argc);
return 0;
}
Claim: This is an example of a structured program. Its call graph:
main ------> printf
| ^
| |
+---> print ---+
Since when does a graph with two, count them two (that's 2) paths from
main to printf qualify as a tree?
--
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 01:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5cf2403-fdaf-451a-bcab-813c63e3f561@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89212 |
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 10:35:27 PM UTC+1, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 6/15/2016 12:33 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > [...]
> > A structured program consists of a tree of subroutines (functions in C terminology),
> > which is meant to be roughly balanced - you can't turn a list of commands
> > into a structured program by drawing lines every so often and converting the
> > step to a call, and you can't turn a list of commands into a structured program
> > by saying that each command is actually a subroutine (which it often is in
> > a lower level sense). it's got to be roughly balanced, non-degenerate tree.
>
> Balderdash.
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> static void print(int value) {
> printf("value = %d\n", value);
> }
>
> int main(int agrc, char *argv[]) {
> printf("Hello, world!");
> print(argc);
> return 0;
> }
>
> Claim: This is an example of a structured program. Its call graph:
>
> main ------> printf
> | ^
> | |
> +---> print ---+
>
> Since when does a graph with two, count them two (that's 2) paths from
> main to printf qualify as a tree?
>
Consider this
int compf1(const void *e1, const void *e2)
{
return *(const int*)e1 - *(const int *)e2;
}
int compf2(const void *e1, const void *e2)
{
return *(const int*)e2 - *(const int *)e1;
}
int main(void)
{
int data[10] = "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6};
int i;
qsort(data, sizeof(int), 10, compf1);
for(i=0;i<10;i++)
printf("%d ", data[i]);
printf("\n");
qsort(data, sizeof(int), 10, compf2);
for(i=0;i<10;i++)
printf("%d ", data[i]);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
How would you draw a similar graph to yours?
It can't be done. The nodes are calls, not function definitions.
We've got a tree with one root node (main) four calls to
printf, and two calls to qsort. The two qsort nodes have different
children, compf1, and compf2.
So you see that the property breaks only if we pass in a function
pointer determined by an algorithm.
Let's assume that in this implementation, qsort() is not recursive.
If it is, then of course we have additional difficulties drawing
the graph, and you can argue that it's no longer a structured
program.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 15:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87ziqlussg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #89257 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 10:35:27 PM UTC+1, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 6/15/2016 12:33 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > A structured program consists of a tree of subroutines (functions
>> > in C terminology),
>> > which is meant to be roughly balanced - you can't turn a list of commands
>> > into a structured program by drawing lines every so often and converting the
>> > step to a call, and you can't turn a list of commands into a structured program
>> > by saying that each command is actually a subroutine (which it often is in
>> > a lower level sense). it's got to be roughly balanced, non-degenerate tree.
>>
>> Balderdash.
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> static void print(int value) {
>> printf("value = %d\n", value);
>> }
>>
>> int main(int agrc, char *argv[]) {
>> printf("Hello, world!");
>> print(argc);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> Claim: This is an example of a structured program. Its call graph:
>>
>> main ------> printf
>> | ^
>> | |
>> +---> print ---+
>>
>> Since when does a graph with two, count them two (that's 2) paths from
>> main to printf qualify as a tree?
So your answer (extrapolated from below) is that in your graph the nodes
are individual calls not named functions:
main
/ \
printf print
\
printf
In that case it remains a tree even if the call pattern becomes
recursive.
By the way, just as you have redefined "structured programming" this is
not the usual meaning of "call graph".
> Consider this
>
> int compf1(const void *e1, const void *e2)
> {
> return *(const int*)e1 - *(const int *)e2;
> }
>
> int compf2(const void *e1, const void *e2)
> {
> return *(const int*)e2 - *(const int *)e1;
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
> int data[10] = "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6};
> int i;
>
> qsort(data, sizeof(int), 10, compf1);
> for(i=0;i<10;i++)
> printf("%d ", data[i]);
> printf("\n");
>
> qsort(data, sizeof(int), 10, compf2);
> for(i=0;i<10;i++)
> printf("%d ", data[i]);
> printf("\n");
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> How would you draw a similar graph to yours?
main
/ \
qsort printf
/ \
compf1 compf2
(Taking "similar to yours" to mean "what everyone else calls a call
graph".)
> It can't be done. The nodes are calls, not function definitions.
It can be be done either way. Eric is using the usual meaning of the
term. Your meaning goes by other names but none seems to be used widely
enough to give it a definite name. Wikipedia calls is the "calling
context tree".
> We've got a tree with one root node (main) four calls to
> printf, and two calls to qsort. The two qsort nodes have different
> children, compf1, and compf2.
You just described it. Why do you think it can't be drawn?
> So you see that the property breaks only if we pass in a function
> pointer determined by an algorithm.
Nonsense. Both the dynamic call tree and the static call graph can be
drawn in this case.
> Let's assume that in this implementation, qsort() is not recursive.
> If it is, then of course we have additional difficulties drawing
> the graph, and you can argue that it's no longer a structured
> program.
No. Only *you* would argue that.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 08:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2f30628-5831-4ba6-8d8e-ebb0e00f05a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89271 |
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:12:26 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > So your answer (extrapolated from below) is that in your graph the nodes > are individual calls not named functions: > > main > / \ > printf print > \ > printf > > In that case it remains a tree even if the call pattern becomes > recursive. > No, because if we disallow recursive calls and function pointers, then we can draw the tree simply by looking through the function source and adding an edge and a child each time a call appears in the source. If we allow recursive calls, either we have to draw a cycle (so we no longer have a tree), or we have to know how deep the recursion goes at compile time, which is unlikely. otherwise we can't draw the tree. With function pointers, we can still draw the tree if we know the identity of the function pointer at compile time, though we lose the property that all nodes with the same function name are identical. if we can't determined the identity of the function pointer at compile time, we can't draw the tree. This tree is the central structure that makes structured programming structured. (You can define nodes as blocks rather than functions, which is a bad idea, but links nicely with block scope variables thread).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 23:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bn30vl7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #89284 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:12:26 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> So your answer (extrapolated from below) is that in your graph the nodes >> are individual calls not named functions: >> >> main >> / \ >> printf print >> \ >> printf >> >> In that case it remains a tree even if the call pattern becomes >> recursive. >> > No, because if we disallow recursive calls and function pointers, then we > can draw the tree simply by looking through the function source and adding > an edge and a child each time a call appears in the source. This is another meaning of "call graph". The usual one is not a tree, and the the dynamic "calling context tree" has no loops for recursive calls. When you make up a technical-sounding term, it would really help if you checked it if has a standard meaning first. If, after that check, you feel you must still use it, prefix it with something like "my" or "Malcolm's". <snip> > This tree is the central structure that makes structured programming > structured. No it isn't. Anyone who wants to find out what are the central features of structured programming really are should read what the experts say about it. You could do worse than start with the inventor of the term: "Structured Programming", O. Dahl, Edsger Dijkstra, C. A. R. Hoare, available in various editions. Originally published in 1972. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 16:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d062e282-620d-47e3-8bc0-b2c172925f57@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89344 |
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:10:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > <snip> > > This tree is the central structure that makes structured programming > > structured. > > No it isn't. Anyone who wants to find out what are the central features > of structured programming really are should read what the experts say > about it. You could do worse than start with the inventor of the term: > > "Structured Programming", O. Dahl, Edsger Dijkstra, C. A. R. Hoare, > available in various editions. Originally published in 1972. > One of my favorite books! I carry it around everywhere in my bag next to A Programming Language by Ken Iverson. The first part -- by Dijkstra -- is about top-down design of a structured program (and other ancillary topics). The second part -- by Dahl -- is about object-oriented programming and design illustrated with Simula. And the third part. I don't think I can adequately explain it. Need to read it a few more times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 19:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be353258-17a0-4989-a3b4-0b02b22a61d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89344 |
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:10:57 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > <snip> > > This tree is the central structure that makes structured programming > > structured. > > No it isn't. Anyone who wants to find out what are the central features > of structured programming really are should read what the experts say > about it. You could do worse than start with the inventor of the term: > > "Structured Programming", O. Dahl, Edsger Dijkstra, C. A. R. Hoare, > available in various editions. Originally published in 1972. > Are you sure? Are you sure that the tree as I have described it is not the "structure" of "structured programming"? What other thing would you say the "structure" refers to? How does it differ from the tree of functions or "blocks" that I have described?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 06:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87eg7w4dgr.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #89356 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > Are you sure? Yes > Are you sure that the tree as I have described it is not the > "structure" of "structured programming"? Yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 01:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67c53c3a-39c3-432f-89a3-60ef04a93fae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89364 |
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 6:00:12 AM UTC+1, gwowen wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > > Are you sure? > > Yes > > > Are you sure that the tree as I have described it is not the > > "structure" of "structured programming"? > > Yes > I noticed you snipped the difficult question. But you have at least nailed your colours to the mast.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 07:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nk0phh$v39$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89369 |
On 6/17/2016 3:09 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 6:00:12 AM UTC+1, gwowen wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >>> Are you sure? >> >> Yes >> >>> Are you sure that the tree as I have described it is not the >>> "structure" of "structured programming"? >> >> Yes >> > I noticed you snipped the difficult question. What's difficult about them? You can find the answers to the question about what things structure refers to in the wikipedia article that you dismissed as being "mostly history". The other answer should then be obvious. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 05:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6516ac44-70bf-4f7d-99fb-cb08b966dc05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89397 |
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 1:13:47 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: > On 6/17/2016 3:09 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 6:00:12 AM UTC+1, gwowen wrote: > >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> > >>> Are you sure? > >> > >> Yes > >> > >>> Are you sure that the tree as I have described it is not the > >>> "structure" of "structured programming"? > >> > >> Yes > >> > > I noticed you snipped the difficult question. > > What's difficult about them? You can find the answers to the question > about what things structure refers to in the wikipedia article that you > dismissed as being "mostly history". The other answer should then be > obvious. > Anyone can say "yes" or "no" like an insolent schoolboy. If you read the article carefully you'll see that the structure of structured programming is as I described. Blocks containing a single point of entry and a sigle point of exit, which can be expanded to contain other blocks with the same characteristics. Thats the central idea. Often formulated as "goto considered harmful". (Because you can't jump into a block our out of it, you can loop to a block start however, and in some languages that must be via a statement with a name like "goto". So it's not quite synonymous with "ban goto" but it's the same essential idea). Now if you can't see that, you fundamentally haven't understood what structured programming is all about. In fact it's best to think of subroutines as "blocks", specify that a subroutine shall be sufficiently short to be understood to be correct by human examination, and forget the flowcharts. That's the way structured programming has developed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 08:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nk0t07$bma$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89399 |
On 6/17/2016 7:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 1:13:47 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: >> On 6/17/2016 3:09 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 6:00:12 AM UTC+1, gwowen wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Are you sure? >>>> >>>> Yes >>>> >>>>> Are you sure that the tree as I have described it is not the >>>>> "structure" of "structured programming"? >>>> >>>> Yes >>>> >>> I noticed you snipped the difficult question. >> >> What's difficult about them? You can find the answers to the question >> about what things structure refers to in the wikipedia article that you >> dismissed as being "mostly history". The other answer should then be >> obvious. >> > Anyone can say "yes" or "no" like an insolent schoolboy. True, but irrelevant here. > > If you read the article carefully you'll see that the structure of structured > programming is as I described. No I don't. > Blocks containing a single point of entry > and a sigle point of exit, which can be expanded to contain other blocks > with the same characteristics. Which is not what you described earlier. Your description limited this to only subroutines. > Thats the central idea. That's only one part of it. There are other parts that are arguably more important. > Often formulated as "goto considered harmful". > (Because you can't jump into a block our out of it, you can loop to a > block start however, and in some languages that must be via a statement > with a name like "goto". So it's not quite synonymous with "ban goto" > but it's the same essential idea). > Now if you can't see that, you fundamentally haven't understood what > structured programming is all about. Structured programming is about the ability to reason about programs. By limiting the structures used to those structures that facilitate reasoning, you make it easier to write correct programs. That is what structured programming is fundamentally about. Limiting blocks to a single entry/exit is only a small part of it. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68ca1d97-7488-4d21-9127-4d5c20317553@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89406 |
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:12:46 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: > > Structured programming is about the ability to reason about programs. By > limiting the structures used to those structures that facilitate > reasoning, you make it easier to write correct programs. That is what > structured programming is fundamentally about. Limiting blocks to a > single entry/exit is only a small part of it. > No. Limiting blocks to a single entry / exit point is the heart and soul of it. There is more. But that's the fundamental idea. Everything else flows from that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web