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 15 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 19 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnmvmis0hx.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89555 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Assuming everything is properly declared, I think C scope rules are
> probably still crazier than JS especially when you throw in the
> simultaneous namespaces of C.
>
> For example, a single function in C can have:
>
> * An unlimited number of types, enums or variables called 'A'
>
> * An unlimited number of struct tags called 'A'
>
> * At most one label called 'A'
>
> * In any one block, up to 4 different 'A's can be visible,
> or up to 3 'A's at any one point in the block.
>
> I'm not familiar with JS but I'd guess the number might be at most one
> possible name called 'A', as it is with my languages.
>
> (All exclude member names of structs, and, where available, names inside
> nested functions. I'm counting only names that don't appear after "." or
> "->")
>
> So, you still think C is saner?
I don't know JavaScript well enough to judge how sane it is. But I do
think that C's rules are quite sane. Sure, they show signs of having
evolved rather than being a single coherent design, but the rules are
consistent and not horribly complex.
And there is not an extra layer of arbitrary restrictions to prevent
programmers from writing ugly code; rather, the language depends on
programmers to have some degree of good taste.
Yes, an identifier `A` can have several different meanings within a
block, depending on just where it's used.
Have this ever been a real problem for you in non-contrived code?
> (I had been wondering whether to throw together a C compiler front-end
> sometime this year. But it means that, no matter how much I might
> disagree with these quirks, I'd have to implement all this stuff. And a
> lot more.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 11:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk374p$eks$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89480 |
On 18/06/2016 01:38, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>> Possibly Javascript.
> The language does indeed have nested functions and some rather bizarre
> scoping rules. If the first token isn't a string literal "use strict";
> the scoping rules are particularly bizarre. Given
>
> function f(a) { var x=a; x++; return x; }
>
> a local variable x would be created iwthin function f(a). If the "var"
> declaration were omitted but the caller's context included a variable
> named x, that variable would be assigned and incremented. If the
> caller's context didn't include such a variable, it would be created
> within the caller's context.
Languages that don't require declarations will need some rules in place.
Letting an undeclared name in a function refer either to a global (if
one is visible) or to a new local (if not) seems reasonable enough.
But one problem is that if later on a global is introduced that clashes
with the local, then the function can be screwed up. (Although in 30
years of using such a scheme, I've rarely had problems.)
Python's approach is different: undeclared names are declared as locals
if they are assigned to within the function, otherwise they can refer to
a global. You need a special declaration for a global name that is
assigned to within the function (assigning and modifying have subtle
differences in this language).
Python doesn't have declarations for locals, other than just assigning
to them, and this can be done anywhere; there are no block scopes (but
it does have nested functions).
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 01:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk240h$ob2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89472 |
On 18/06/2016 00:09, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 17/06/2016 20:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> Functions are an obvious and very well known and understood method of
>>>> structuring code into smaller pieces. It is useful to create a local
>>>> environment with its own declarations to deal with a specific task.
>>>
>>> So are blocks, to anyone who knows C reasonably well.
>>
>> To nowhere near the same extent as named functions.
>
> I disagree. Anyone who claims to know C has to be familiar with block
> scope.
I said that functions are more commonly used to create localised code.
I know what C block scopes are, but I've never used them, other than
using top-level blocks to enable what I call 'function scope'.
I normally write code in a language that, while it only has function
scope variables within a function, is actually more flexible than C in
where those declarations can be placed.
Yet funnily enough they're always at the top of a function. I wonder why
that is?
(I've just been looking through a bunch of CPython C sources, where
although most declarations are at the top of a function, there are a
significant number of non-top-level block declarations used too. And I
can tell you they're a damn nuisance!
You see something like this:
if (PyLong_CheckExact(result)) {
int overflow;
long i_result = PyLong_AsLongAndOverflow(result, &overflow);
/* If this already overflowed, don't even enter the loop. */
if (overflow == 0) {
Py_DECREF(result);
result = NULL;
}
and you think, glancing down quickly, that the scope of 'overflow' ends
at the } above (but actually it doesn't), then get puzzled why there is
another reference to 'overflow' later on.
So just as I expected, it's down to counting and matching braces to
figure out the exact scope of any of these variables. And in this
source, there are a variety of brace placement styles to help catch you out.
Then if you start from the other end, seeing 'overflow', then you need
to scan *all* the code backwards to find its declaration, instead of
going straight to the top of the function.
Just as bad as I thought it would be. (Of course everyone else will say
they use smart editors to tell them everything so that it is not a
problem. But /I/ see it as a problem when a language has to rely on
smart editors, highlighting, compiler options and diagnostics to
overcome poor design.)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lninx7tizi.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89478 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 18/06/2016 00:09, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 17/06/2016 20:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Functions are an obvious and very well known and understood method of
>>>>> structuring code into smaller pieces. It is useful to create a local
>>>>> environment with its own declarations to deal with a specific task.
>>>>
>>>> So are blocks, to anyone who knows C reasonably well.
>>>
>>> To nowhere near the same extent as named functions.
>>
>> I disagree. Anyone who claims to know C has to be familiar with block
>> scope.
>
> I said that functions are more commonly used to create localised code.
Sure.
> I know what C block scopes are, but I've never used them, other than
> using top-level blocks to enable what I call 'function scope'.
Your odd avoidance of a language feature has made it difficult for you
to understand that feature. It happens.
And please stop calling it "function scope" if you're referring to C.
Perhaps you'd consider using the phrase "outer block scope".
> I normally write code in a language that, while it only has function
> scope variables within a function, is actually more flexible than C in
> where those declarations can be placed.
>
> Yet funnily enough they're always at the top of a function. I wonder why
> that is?
No idea. You haven't even said what language you're talking about.
You can of course program in any style you like. Complaining that a
language permits styles other than the one you prefer will not yield
useful results.
> (I've just been looking through a bunch of CPython C sources, where
> although most declarations are at the top of a function, there are a
> significant number of non-top-level block declarations used too. And I
> can tell you they're a damn nuisance!
>
> You see something like this:
>
> if (PyLong_CheckExact(result)) {
> int overflow;
> long i_result = PyLong_AsLongAndOverflow(result, &overflow);
> /* If this already overflowed, don't even enter the loop. */
> if (overflow == 0) {
> Py_DECREF(result);
> result = NULL;
> }
>
> and you think, glancing down quickly, that the scope of 'overflow' ends
> at the } above (but actually it doesn't), then get puzzled why there is
> another reference to 'overflow' later on.
Perhaps you do. I'd actually see something like this:
if (PyLong_CheckExact(result)) {
int overflow;
long i_result = PyLong_AsLongAndOverflow(result, &overflow);
/* If this already overflowed, don't even enter the loop. */
if (overflow == 0) {
Py_DECREF(result);
result = NULL;
}
/* ... */
call_something_else(&overflow);
if (overflow == 0) {
/* do something here */
}
}
It would never occur to me, with or without the extra context, that the
scope of `overflow` would end at the first `}`. It clearly ends at the
end of the containing block, at the outer `}` that you omitted.
I'm sorry you find this confusing. But you seem to be more determined
to complain about it than to do anything to alleviate your own
confusion. It's not the language's fault.
> So just as I expected, it's down to counting and matching braces to
> figure out the exact scope of any of these variables. And in this
> source, there are a variety of brace placement styles to help catch you out.
>
> Then if you start from the other end, seeing 'overflow', then you need
> to scan *all* the code backwards to find its declaration, instead of
> going straight to the top of the function.
>
> Just as bad as I thought it would be. (Of course everyone else will say
> they use smart editors to tell them everything so that it is not a
> problem. But /I/ see it as a problem when a language has to rely on
> smart editors, highlighting, compiler options and diagnostics to
> overcome poor design.)
In fact the editor I use (vim) has a command ("gd") to jump to the
declaration of a variable if the cursor is sitting on a reference to it.
It doesn't always get it right. The "#" command, to search backwards
for the current word, is also quite useful and typically a bit more
reliable.
But as it happens I didn't know about either of those commands until
relatively recently, and before that I didn't have much trouble finding
where something is declared.
--
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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 18:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5327e1ba-7948-47d8-a53c-f45259119606@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89481 |
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 1:54:01 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Your odd avoidance of a language feature has made it difficult for you > to understand that feature. It happens. > Rejecting a feature does not necessarily mean that you "fail to understand it". If the feature was introduced deliberately, it does mean that you disagree with whoever took the decision to include it, but that's not the same thing. > > And please stop calling it "function scope" if you're referring to C. > Perhaps you'd consider using the phrase "outer block scope". > A variable with "function scope" is in scope for the lifetime of the function, from call to return. It's also just an ordinary case of block scope, since C functions are blocks (in several senses). However a function block has enough special characteristics to give that scope its own name. "Function scope" is very clearly the sensible and best term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 21:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nk28l0$2n3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89485 |
On 6/17/2016 9:20 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> [...]
> A variable with "function scope" is in scope for the lifetime
> of the function, from call to return.
There is no such thing as a variable with function scope.
(In fact, there is no such thing as a variable with any kind
of scope whatsoever -- but that's a correction for another day.)
--
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk34c0$668$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89488 |
On 18/06/2016 02:37, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 6/17/2016 9:20 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> [...] >> A variable with "function scope" is in scope for the lifetime >> of the function, from call to return. > > There is no such thing as a variable with function scope. > Part of the discussion is about a possible change to the scoping rules of C. That may necessarily entail talking about such alien concepts as an identifier - no necessarily a label - whose lexical scope scans an entire function. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 07:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nk3cll$7b4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89511 |
On 6/18/2016 5:30 AM, BartC wrote:
> On 18/06/2016 02:37, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 6/17/2016 9:20 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> A variable with "function scope" is in scope for the lifetime
>>> of the function, from call to return.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a variable with function scope.
>>
>
> Part of the discussion is about a possible change to the scoping rules
> of C.
End the so-called discussion: Such a change is not possible.
(Thought experiment: The operator precedence rules have a few
glaring glitches. Is it possible to change them?)
--
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 13:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nk3gkd$l4c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89522 |
On 18/06/2016 12:52, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 6/18/2016 5:30 AM, BartC wrote: >> On 18/06/2016 02:37, Eric Sosman wrote: >>> On 6/17/2016 9:20 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> A variable with "function scope" is in scope for the lifetime >>>> of the function, from call to return. >>> >>> There is no such thing as a variable with function scope. >>> >> >> Part of the discussion is about a possible change to the scoping rules >> of C. > > End the so-called discussion: Such a change is not possible. Come on, virtually no changes are possible to C anyway. Even trivial matters such as binary literals and numeric separators which will have no impact on existing code bases seem next to impossible to push through. But there's nothing wrong with discussing these things and some might find it interesting to participate. Others may even be encouraged to apply such ideas to C-like languages of their own. (Or not quite so C-like in my case. I've discussed dozens of these issues in here over the years, and I've successfully implemented most of them). -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 22:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln60t7t7ie.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89485 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 1:54:01 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> And please stop calling it "function scope" if you're referring to C.
>> Perhaps you'd consider using the phrase "outer block scope".
>>
> A variable with "function scope" is in scope for the lifetime
> of the function, from call to return. It's also just an ordinary
> case of block scope, since C functions are blocks (in several
> senses). However a function block has enough special characteristics
> to give that scope its own name.
> "Function scope" is very clearly the sensible and best term.
Malcolm, *please* stop taking terms with unambiguous established
meanings and redefining them. The phrase "function scope" has a
precise meaning in C. It applies only to labels, and it is not
affected by blocks.
It *could* have been defined as you suggest, and it might have been
perfectly reasonable to do so, but it wasn't.
You. Are. Wrong.
--
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 | 2016-06-18 10:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nk368i$m4k$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #89502 |
In article <ln60t7t7ie.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> babbled: ... >It *could* have been defined as you suggest, and it might have been >perfectly reasonable to do so, but it wasn't. > >You. Are. Wrong. Kiki. Killfile. Google. Your. Friend. -- Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich. - Napoleon Bonaparte -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 21:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nk272u$vd9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89478 |
On 6/17/2016 8:18 PM, BartC wrote:
> [...]
> I know what C block scopes are, but I've never used them, other than
> using top-level blocks to enable what I call 'function scope'.
Why don't you just call it `do..for', for clarity's sake?
--
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 06:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b728fd1a-6418-484f-b141-dc4d93887e7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89261 |
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 2:06:57 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > And having your variables alive > throughout the function does not in any way make your code more correct > when you mess up the order of variable assignments and variable usage - > it merely means that you get well-defined and consistent incorrect code > instead of undefined behaviour of incorrect code. And of course the > cost of your limitations is that you separate the definition of > variables from their usage, making code harder to read, write and maintain. > Returning a pointer to a variable that has gone out of scope is beginner's error. It's not the type of mistake that an experienced C programmer is likely to make, because you don't use pointers like that in well-designed code. If you've only got one scope, you can't make that error, however. it's a fair point. Disallowing block scope makes code a little bit harder to write, but the rest is very arguable. A function is a stable, psychologically meaningful division, a block is not. And a function should be small enough that a programmer, assuming that he knows what subroutines do and that they are correct, can verify that it is correct by reading through it. If you need black scope variables, that characteristic is less likely to be maintained. There are also issues of code clutter and whether it is better to have one "glossary" or several 'footnotes" (local versus central information). That's more subjective. it would be interesting to set up psychological tests to see, in fact I might contact some psychologists to suggest undergraduate projects based on code metrics - the experiments are doable with limited resources and potentially useful, without being likely to win any Nobel prizes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87eg7xw7w1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #89267 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: <snip> > Returning a pointer to a variable that has gone out of scope is beginner's > error. It may be better to talk about "using a pointer to a variable whose lifetime has ended". A pointer to a named object can be valid even when the name has gone out of scope (in a called function for example). The problem occurs only when the point of execution has past the end of the scope, and the lifetime of the named object ends. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 10:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <njudft$e7f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89261 |
On 6/16/2016 9:06 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 16/06/16 14:06, BartC wrote:
>> [...]
>> {
>> int* p;
>> {
>> int A = 77;
>> p = &A;
>> }
>> printf("*p=%d\n", *p);
>> }
>> [...]
>> So it does seem that block-scopes could lead to more subtle bugs
>> compared to having only function-wide scopes. Unless perhaps someone has
>> a counter-example that shows the opposite?
>
> I can agree that block scopes can lead to subtle bugs [...]
The subtle (?) bug here is due not to block scope, but to
block lifetime. The behavior is undefined not because `A' has
gone out of scope when the arguments to printf() are marshalled,
but because `A' has ceased to exist by that time. If `A' were
made `static' its scope would be exactly as in the example, yet
the behavior would then be well-defined. Conclusion: Scope is
not the problem here.
--
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lninx9w205.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89261 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 16/06/16 14:06, BartC wrote:
[...]
>> I've looked at some more aspects of block-scopes. If I try this code:
>>
>> {
>> int* p;
>> {
>> int A = 77;
>> p = &A;
>> }
>> printf("*p=%d\n", *p);
>> }
>>
>> then none of compilers I tried gives any sort of warning about it. (That
>> is, Pelles C, lccwin, DMC, gcc, TCC and clang. gcc was given -Wall
>> -Wextra -Wpedantic and the output was not filtered.)
>
> gcc warns about it - though the warning is the slightly cryptic
> "warning: 'A' is used uninitialized in this function".
gcc-5.2.0 and up print that warning. gcc-4.9.0 does not. Also, with
gcc-4.9.0 and earlier, the output is "*p=77" at all optimization levels.
[...]
--
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 | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 15:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsnm5hjp.9n1.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #89258 |
On 2016-06-16, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 16/06/2016 01:11, BartC wrote:
>
>> (FWIW, how I implement this outside C is that the declaration of a name,
>> in any block in a function, extends not only to the entire block, but to
>> the whole function.
>
> I've looked at some more aspects of block-scopes. If I try this code:
>
> {
> int* p;
> {
> int A = 77;
> p = &A;
> }
> printf("*p=%d\n", *p);
> }
>
>
> then none of compilers I tried gives any sort of warning about it. (That
> is, Pelles C, lccwin, DMC, gcc, TCC and clang. gcc was given -Wall
> -Wextra -Wpedantic and the output was not filtered.)
>
> All also display '77', except gcc that displays '0' when optimised;
> unoptimised, it also shows '77'.
>
> So it does seem that block-scopes could lead to more subtle bugs
> compared to having only function-wide scopes. Unless perhaps someone has
> a counter-example that shows the opposite?
One can write a similar example with function-wide scopes:
int *foo(void)
{
int A = 77;
return &A;
}
void bar(void)
{
int *p = foo();
printf("*p=%d\n", *p);
}
Same subtle bug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 17:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <njuik5$2gp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89285 |
On 16/06/2016 16:32, Ike Naar wrote:
> On 2016-06-16, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>> {
>> int* p;
>> {
>> int A = 77;
>> p = &A;
>> }
>> printf("*p=%d\n", *p);
>> }
>> So it does seem that block-scopes could lead to more subtle bugs
>> compared to having only function-wide scopes. Unless perhaps someone has
>> a counter-example that shows the opposite?
>
> One can write a similar example with function-wide scopes:
>
> int *foo(void)
> {
> int A = 77;
> return &A;
> }
>
> void bar(void)
> {
> int *p = foo();
> printf("*p=%d\n", *p);
> }
>
> Same subtle bug.
That one's not quite as subtle. It's more obvious that an auto-variable
in a function will no longer exist on exit from the function.
Also, the chances are that undefined data will be returned, so you will
know something is wrong. With the block-scope version, the chances are
that it will still work (until it runs elsewhere).
Finally, most compilers will warn against this, and at any optimisation
level. (Only gcc -O3 reported a warning with the block-scope version. 4
compilers out of 6 warned against the function-scope version whether
optimised or not.)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 22:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsnm69sd.2aa.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #89293 |
On 2016-06-16, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 16/06/2016 16:32, Ike Naar wrote:
>> On 2016-06-16, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> {
>>> int* p;
>>> {
>>> int A = 77;
>>> p = &A;
>>> }
>>> printf("*p=%d\n", *p);
>>> }
>
>>> So it does seem that block-scopes could lead to more subtle bugs
>>> compared to having only function-wide scopes. Unless perhaps someone has
>>> a counter-example that shows the opposite?
>>
>> One can write a similar example with function-wide scopes:
>>
>> int *foo(void)
>> {
>> int A = 77;
>> return &A;
>> }
>>
>> void bar(void)
>> {
>> int *p = foo();
>> printf("*p=%d\n", *p);
>> }
>>
>> Same subtle bug.
>
> That one's not quite as subtle. It's more obvious that an auto-variable
> in a function will no longer exist on exit from the function.
An auto-variable in a block ceases to exist on exit from the block.
An auto-variable in a function ceases to exist on exit from the
function. Why would one behaviour be more obvious than the other?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 23:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <njva5f$toj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89345 |
On 16/06/2016 23:26, Ike Naar wrote:
> On 2016-06-16, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2016 16:32, Ike Naar wrote:
>>> One can write a similar example with function-wide scopes:
>>>
>>> int *foo(void)
>>> {
>>> int A = 77;
>>> return &A;
>>> }
>>>
>>> void bar(void)
>>> {
>>> int *p = foo();
>>> printf("*p=%d\n", *p);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Same subtle bug.
>>
>> That one's not quite as subtle. It's more obvious that an auto-variable
>> in a function will no longer exist on exit from the function.
>
> An auto-variable in a block ceases to exist on exit from the block.
> An auto-variable in a function ceases to exist on exit from the
> function. Why would one behaviour be more obvious than the other?
It just is.
People declare things without regard for whereabouts they are in
relation to a block. Or blocks are added or removed later that will
quietly change the scope of a name, or a whole block is moved somewhere
else in the function.
And while they should know that names only exist within the block, I'd
imagine quite a few don't, or have rarely thought about it. Not helped
by the fact that while the lexical scope ends at }, compilers are likely
to implement such variables with the same lifetime as the function.
Leading to code such as my example actually working, in a way that it is
highly unlikely to work if an attempt was made to access local data from
outside a function.
So such bugs will be more subtle than ones involving functions,
including also for the other reasons I mentioned.
(That's not the only such bug that is likely either. Block scopes allow
this:
{ int A;
{ int A;
{print(A);
goto L;
float A;
}
print(A)
}
print (A);
{//char A;}
L: print(A);
}
print(A);
}
although those who defend them say this is unlikely to be done in real
code (ie. re-use the same identifier multiple times in the same
function). In that case, why allow it?)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web