Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #70600 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-16 06:18 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-09-17 17:06 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 138 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 06:18 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 17:06 +1200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 08:00 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 09:00 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 02:03 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 11:20 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 13:08 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 13:26 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 17:47 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 09:37 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:41 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-17 07:06 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:22 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 23:13 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:35 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-16 18:12 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 13:18 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 08:47 -0700
Re: Quoting Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 20:30 +0200
Re: Quoting Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 11:41 -0700
Re: Quoting Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 20:53 +0200
Re: Quoting Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 12:19 -0700
Re: Quoting Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 21:49 +0200
Re: Quoting Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 13:24 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-16 18:14 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:22 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-16 18:29 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:31 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 12:48 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:56 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 13:09 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 23:41 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 18:05 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 12:13 -0500
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 10:13 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:01 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 13:53 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:10 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 10:33 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:40 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 12:50 -0500
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:55 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 13:57 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 11:02 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 20:50 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 12:20 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 23:33 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 17:52 -0400
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:03 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:30 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 00:26 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-16 21:24 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 05:48 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-17 07:16 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 17:00 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-17 11:23 -0700
MSVC deprecation (was Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 23:31 -0700
Re: MSVC deprecation (was Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet) Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-17 07:33 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-17 11:46 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 22:26 +1200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-17 11:17 +0000
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-17 13:33 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 13:56 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-17 14:20 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-17 13:28 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-17 15:18 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-17 13:34 +0000
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-17 12:29 +0000
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-17 05:34 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 14:48 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 08:52 -0400
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 08:50 -0400
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-17 12:57 +0000
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 13:52 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 07:13 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 07:42 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 07:55 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 05:51 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 16:27 -0400
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 23:35 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 00:36 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 08:09 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 07:59 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-17 01:13 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 13:08 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 23:22 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-09-17 08:57 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-17 15:28 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 09:45 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-09-17 22:56 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-18 10:19 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 23:01 -0500
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-18 10:20 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-18 09:23 +0100
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-18 14:08 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-18 08:48 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2015-09-18 16:44 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-18 17:33 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2015-09-19 21:12 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-21 09:10 +0000
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-21 09:16 +0000
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 08:34 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 09:33 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 10:43 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 12:29 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 13:10 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 13:42 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 14:04 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 14:34 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 15:01 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-09-16 22:26 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-17 13:46 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 12:48 +0100
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-21 09:14 +0000
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-21 06:13 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-21 17:39 +0100
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-10-02 13:21 +0000
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-02 13:25 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-10-04 13:51 +0000
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-04 15:45 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-16 21:39 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 00:42 +0100
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 07:34 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 23:55 -0500
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 13:03 -0500
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:31 +1200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 11:06 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:17 +1200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 11:56 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 08:59 -0700
Re: "gcc" on OS X Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 21:43 +0200
Re: "gcc" on OS X Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 13:20 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 08:25 +1200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-17 11:21 +0000
Re: gcc not a symlink on Mac OS X Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 17:06 +0200
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 16:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <55F9D0B8.4080307@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #70675 |
On 09/16/2015 02:50 PM, Noob wrote: > On 16/09/2015 18:22, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills? > > You are right to ask this question. > > Undisclosed biases, astro turfing, hidden agendas, etc are > a plague in online arguments. That's true, when matters of opinion are being discussed. When matters of fact are under discussion, there's no need to delve into such issues. > JN derives his monies by selling a C compiler for Windows. He, and his web site, claim that his compiler is free for non-commercial use, and he has said "I'm not selling anything", which implies he doesn't have any commercial users. How do you conclude that he derives any money from it? Are you privy to secret information indicating that he's been lying about these things? > > This explains why: > > 1) he hates GCC (those fucking GNU hippies with their free software > are stealing his customers) How does the fact that one compiler is free enable that compiler's vendor to steal customers from another free compiler? And given that jacob isn't selling his compiler, why should he care about lost customers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 23:35 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <mtcn6n$fuo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70675 |
On 16/09/15 20:50, Noob wrote: > On 16/09/2015 18:22, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills? > > You are right to ask this question. No, he is not. > > Undisclosed biases, astro turfing, hidden agendas, etc are > a plague in online arguments. It is true that they can be a plague, but I have seen no sign of such problems in c.l.c., and certainly not from Jacob. And while it might be reasonable to ask if someone has a particular agenda for making a post that is out of character or disagrees with commonly held opinion, it is /not/ reasonable to ask personal questions such as this. It really is none of our business - and I am very glad that such personal matters are not a common subject in this technical newsgroup. > > JN derives his monies by selling a C compiler for Windows. > I have taken his posts to mean that he is not attempting to sell anything here in this newsgroup - presumably he sells some licenses of his tools in other contexts (I believe they are built into other peoples tools, rather than being sold as stand-alone compilers, but I could well be wrong about that. Jacob may tell us if he would like us to know, but it's entirely his own business). He does not make any commercial posts or adverts here, and has never to my knowledge tried to encourage anyone to buy a license from him. In fact, I can't even recall seeing him ever suggest anyone tries his tool for free (I would not object to him doing so). And while Jacob clearly has his biases and opinions, like the rest of us, he does give facts too - such in his reply to my biased statement. He merely gave facts to balance the discussion. > This explains why: > > 1) he hates GCC (those fucking GNU hippies with their free software > are stealing his customers) He has other reasons (perhaps good, perhaps bad) for being unenthusiastic about gcc. I think his main one is that he quite simply believes that the compiler he has made, along with the extensions he has made and the C container library he wrote (and gives away for free), are better tools for many users. > 2) he has good knowledge of the Windows platform That appears to be true. > 3) he will often defend Windows as the superior platform I think he likes Windows as an OS. But that's okay - it's a free world. And note that he was defending MSVC, not Windows - if he were trying to promote his own tool then he would be speaking against MSVC as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 00:36 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <N1nKx.2253$v03.1226@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #70724 |
On 16/09/2015 22:35, David Brown wrote: > On 16/09/15 20:50, Noob wrote: >> On 16/09/2015 18:22, Morten W. Petersen wrote: >> >>> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills? >> >> You are right to ask this question. > > No, he is not. Agreed. >> Undisclosed biases, astro turfing, hidden agendas, etc are >> a plague in online arguments. > > It is true that they can be a plague, but I have seen no sign of such > problems in c.l.c., and certainly not from Jacob. He used to semi-plug lccwin32 a while ago, and it got quite a few people's backs up. I think he must have got the message because he doesn't do it any more. What we must also take into account is that English is not Jacob's first language, so he sometimes gets the wrong end of the stick. But anyone who wants to mock him for that had better be able to speak French *really well*. >> JN derives his monies by selling a C compiler for Windows. >> > > I have taken his posts to mean that he is not attempting to sell > anything here in this newsgroup - presumably he sells some licenses of > his tools in other contexts (I believe they are built into other peoples > tools, rather than being sold as stand-alone compilers, but I could well > be wrong about that. That's how I interpret it, too. <snip> >> 3) he will often defend Windows as the superior platform > > I think he likes Windows as an OS. But that's okay - it's a free world. > > And note that he was defending MSVC, not Windows - if he were trying to > promote his own tool then he would be speaking against MSVC as well. Has it ever occurred to anyone that Jacob might just be stating the facts? The answer he gave which prompted this subthread was 100% correct. Morten W. Petersen can reasonably disagree that those /are/ the facts (although he would be incorrect to do so), but to ask, in effect, who bribed Jacob to write them down is a very stupid thing to do. Morten: say sorry, shut up, sit down. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 08:09 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <mtdlec$c9i$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70756 |
On 17.09.2015 01:36, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/09/2015 22:35, David Brown wrote: >> On 16/09/15 20:50, Noob wrote: [...] >>> 3) he will often defend Windows as the superior platform >> >> I think he likes Windows as an OS. But that's okay - it's a free world. >> >> And note that he was defending MSVC, not Windows - if he were trying to >> promote his own tool then he would be speaking against MSVC as well. > > Has it ever occurred to anyone that Jacob might just be stating the > facts? The answer he gave which prompted this subthread was 100% > correct. Morten W. Petersen can reasonably disagree that those /are/ the > facts (although he would be incorrect to do so), but to ask, in effect, > who bribed Jacob to write them down is a very stupid thing to do. > Morten: say sorry, shut up, sit down. Well, interpreting what I said as who bribed Jacob is one way to take it.. another is asking how he earns his living and what kind of perspective he has on life. I've learned the hard way that people can do what they want as long as they get away with it, to get something they want. That a system does something by default affects people, and I think it could help create barriers towards migrating to other systems. That MS implemented a browser ballot screen after the EU commission decided on it shows that what people use by default does in fact matter. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 07:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <uxtKx.447669$7R2.16928@fx03.am4> |
| In reply to | #70770 |
On 17/09/2015 07:09, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > On 17.09.2015 01:36, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 16/09/2015 22:35, David Brown wrote: >>> On 16/09/15 20:50, Noob wrote: > [...] >>>> 3) he will often defend Windows as the superior platform >>> >>> I think he likes Windows as an OS. But that's okay - it's a free world. >>> >>> And note that he was defending MSVC, not Windows - if he were trying to >>> promote his own tool then he would be speaking against MSVC as well. >> >> Has it ever occurred to anyone that Jacob might just be stating the >> facts? The answer he gave which prompted this subthread was 100% >> correct. Morten W. Petersen can reasonably disagree that those /are/ the >> facts (although he would be incorrect to do so), but to ask, in effect, >> who bribed Jacob to write them down is a very stupid thing to do. >> Morten: say sorry, shut up, sit down. > > Well, interpreting what I said as who bribed Jacob is one way to > take it.. That's how it came across. > another is asking how he earns his living and what kind of > perspective he has on life. But that's none of your business and nothing to do with the subject of the thread. > I've learned the hard way that people can do what they want as long > as they get away with it, to get something they want. > > That a system does something by default affects people, and I think > it could help create barriers towards migrating to other systems. That > MS implemented a browser ballot screen after the EU commission decided > on it shows that what people use by default does in fact matter. Again, what on earth does this have to do with the question at hand? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 01:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <97a0158c-2353-4f4e-9c0f-0be614589311@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70770 |
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 7:09:34 AM UTC+1, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > > Well, interpreting what I said as who bribed Jacob is one way > to take it.. another is asking how he earns his living and > what kind of perspective he has on life. > Often that's a rather embarrassing question. For some people, it's no issue, but many people are in work they consider beneath them, or rely on government welfare.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 13:08 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <mte6vh$lga$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70775 |
On 17.09.2015 10:13, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 7:09:34 AM UTC+1, Morten W. Petersen wrote: >> >> Well, interpreting what I said as who bribed Jacob is one way >> to take it.. another is asking how he earns his living and >> what kind of perspective he has on life. >> > Often that's a rather embarrassing question. > For some people, it's no issue, but many people are in work > they consider beneath them, or rely on government welfare. Well yes it was maybe a bit too personal of a question, that said I don't value people less if they are on welfare. Welfare is a safety net that saves people's lives and makes society a better place for everyone. Anyone can get in that position and we pay taxes to have it. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 23:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtcmej$d84$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70643 |
On 16/09/15 18:14, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 16/09/2015 11:20, David Brown a écrit : >> or >> has declared to be "unsafe" and therefore not immediately available. > > Please just keep the facts clear and do not spread FUD... > > All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will get a > warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use them, that > is all. > > For what it is worth in all this noise, I accept that MSVC has all those C89 functions available - you know more about it than me. To me, however, a warning is a serious issue - I very rarely accept warnings in code I write, despite enabling a wide range of warnings in my compilers. So for my use, MSVC does not directly support these C89 functions if I cannot use them in a fully C standard compliant way without causing such warnings. But the easy workaround of making that #define (or #pragma, or whatever) means it would not be a big problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 08:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dNyKx.1112$ZL6.99@fx22.iad> |
| In reply to | #70720 |
On 9/16/15 5:22 PM, David Brown wrote: > On 16/09/15 18:14, jacobnavia wrote: >> Le 16/09/2015 11:20, David Brown a écrit : >>> or >>> has declared to be "unsafe" and therefore not immediately available. >> >> Please just keep the facts clear and do not spread FUD... >> >> All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will get a >> warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use them, that >> is all. >> >> > > For what it is worth in all this noise, I accept that MSVC has all those > C89 functions available - you know more about it than me. To me, > however, a warning is a serious issue - I very rarely accept warnings in > code I write, despite enabling a wide range of warnings in my compilers. > So for my use, MSVC does not directly support these C89 functions if I > cannot use them in a fully C standard compliant way without causing such > warnings. > > But the easy workaround of making that #define (or #pragma, or whatever) > means it would not be a big problem. > > To say NO warnings are allowed, you must also allow for the removal of warnings with options, otherwise there are some constructs that just can't be used. As an example, some compilers might give a warning at the end of a non-void function if there isn't a return with a value there. Another compiler might give an warning if you put the return there because IT can see that it is unreachable. The only way out of this (other than to disable the warning) is to (perhaps massively) rearrange code so that all functions can at least potentially reach the end of every non-void function. Since there is a compiler option to turn off this warning, you CAN write fully C standard compliant code and use MSVC, you just need to set the appropriate compiler options (which the warning even describes how to do). My experience is that out of the box, most compilers aren't fully standards conforming, but try to give you something in the eyes of the implementers is 'better', but most try to get at least close to standard conforming (maybe not the latest, but some version) with appropriate options.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 15:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtef21$vib$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70812 |
On 17/09/15 14:57, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/16/15 5:22 PM, David Brown wrote: >> On 16/09/15 18:14, jacobnavia wrote: >>> Le 16/09/2015 11:20, David Brown a écrit : >>>> or >>>> has declared to be "unsafe" and therefore not immediately available. >>> >>> Please just keep the facts clear and do not spread FUD... >>> >>> All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will get a >>> warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use them, that >>> is all. >>> >>> >> >> For what it is worth in all this noise, I accept that MSVC has all those >> C89 functions available - you know more about it than me. To me, >> however, a warning is a serious issue - I very rarely accept warnings in >> code I write, despite enabling a wide range of warnings in my compilers. >> So for my use, MSVC does not directly support these C89 functions if I >> cannot use them in a fully C standard compliant way without causing such >> warnings. >> >> But the easy workaround of making that #define (or #pragma, or whatever) >> means it would not be a big problem. >> >> > > To say NO warnings are allowed, you must also allow for the removal of > warnings with options, otherwise there are some constructs that just > can't be used. Yes, that's correct - but to the maximum possible extent, I do that with a warning disable pragma around the construct that generates the warning (along with a comment in the code to say why). Sometimes the world is not perfect, and I have to disable particular warnings globally or to accept that builds have certain warnings, but I do all that is reasonable to avoid it. Every false-positive warning on the compiler output is a hinder to seeing the possible errors shown by real warnings. > > As an example, some compilers might give a warning at the end of a > non-void function if there isn't a return with a value there. And it /should/ give a warning, and the code should be corrected - running off the end of a function that claims to return a value, but doesn't do so, is an error in my book. (Unless you are meaning a function that normally returns in the middle somewhere, and the warning is for something that cannot happen - in which case my preference is to use a better compiler.) > Another > compiler might give an warning if you put the return there because IT > can see that it is unreachable. The only way out of this (other than to > disable the warning) is to (perhaps massively) rearrange code so that > all functions can at least potentially reach the end of every non-void > function. As I don't change toolchains in a project, different behaviour between compilers is not an issue here. If I re-use the same basic code in a different project with a completely different compiler, then such issues could occur, of course. > > Since there is a compiler option to turn off this warning, you CAN write > fully C standard compliant code and use MSVC, you just need to set the > appropriate compiler options (which the warning even describes how to do). It's a mute point anyway, since I would never use MSVC for C code. But I agree that it is not hard to avoid the warnings here. (I want my code to be free from the warnings I choose to enable, which happens to be a large proportion of those offered by gcc - but there are certainly some warnings I don't want enabled.) > > My experience is that out of the box, most compilers aren't fully > standards conforming, but try to give you something in the eyes of the > implementers is 'better', but most try to get at least close to standard > conforming (maybe not the latest, but some version) with appropriate > options.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 09:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mteg2r$3s0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70815 |
On 09/17/2015 09:28 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 17/09/15 14:57, Richard Damon wrote: ... >> As an example, some compilers might give a warning at the end of a >> non-void function if there isn't a return with a value there. > > And it /should/ give a warning, and the code should be corrected - > running off the end of a function that claims to return a value, but > doesn't do so, is an error in my book. (Unless you are meaning a > function that normally returns in the middle somewhere, and the warning > is for something that cannot happen - in which case my preference is to > use a better compiler.) "If the } that terminates a function is reached, and the value of the function call is used by the caller, the behavior is undefined." (6.9.1p12) The behavior is only undefined if the value of the function call is used. Therefore, if a function returns a value under some circumstanced, and fails to do so under others, and if the value returned by the function is never used except under circumstances where it is guaranteed to either not return, or to return a value, I would not consider such code to be incorrect. A warning, on the other hand, seems entirely appropriate - that's a dangerous way to design a function. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 22:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <%3LKx.12$AI5.10@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #70815 |
On 9/17/15 9:28 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 17/09/15 14:57, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> To say NO warnings are allowed, you must also allow for the removal of >> warnings with options, otherwise there are some constructs that just >> can't be used. > > Yes, that's correct - but to the maximum possible extent, I do that with > a warning disable pragma around the construct that generates the warning > (along with a comment in the code to say why). Sometimes the world is > not perfect, and I have to disable particular warnings globally or to > accept that builds have certain warnings, but I do all that is > reasonable to avoid it. Every false-positive warning on the compiler > output is a hinder to seeing the possible errors shown by real warnings. > I find sometimes that a compiler will create excessive warnings on something that isn't a problem. Sometimes the best solution is to disable the warning globally with the build system rather than add a mark on every occurrence in the source. One issue with using pragma's to disable warnings is if you code base needs to work with a variety of compilers, the pragma's may well be different for different compilers so the disable code gets ugly with all the conditionals to control it for each compiler. >> >> As an example, some compilers might give a warning at the end of a >> non-void function if there isn't a return with a value there. > > And it /should/ give a warning, and the code should be corrected - > running off the end of a function that claims to return a value, but > doesn't do so, is an error in my book. (Unless you are meaning a > function that normally returns in the middle somewhere, and the warning > is for something that cannot happen - in which case my preference is to > use a better compiler.) My case is the latter, you know that the function will never return by falling off the end, but one compiler doesn't detect that it won't fall off, but the other does and warns of the unreachable return. Sometimes you don't have a lot of choice on compilers, you use what the manufacturer of the chip/system provides. > >> Another >> compiler might give an warning if you put the return there because IT >> can see that it is unreachable. The only way out of this (other than to >> disable the warning) is to (perhaps massively) rearrange code so that >> all functions can at least potentially reach the end of every non-void >> function. > > As I don't change toolchains in a project, different behaviour between > compilers is not an issue here. If I re-use the same basic code in a > different project with a completely different compiler, then such issues > could occur, of course. > The issue is mostly with internal standard libraries to provide common functionality in varied systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 10:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtgha7$444$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70862 |
On 18/09/15 04:56, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/17/15 9:28 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 17/09/15 14:57, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>> To say NO warnings are allowed, you must also allow for the removal of >>> warnings with options, otherwise there are some constructs that just >>> can't be used. >> >> Yes, that's correct - but to the maximum possible extent, I do that with >> a warning disable pragma around the construct that generates the warning >> (along with a comment in the code to say why). Sometimes the world is >> not perfect, and I have to disable particular warnings globally or to >> accept that builds have certain warnings, but I do all that is >> reasonable to avoid it. Every false-positive warning on the compiler >> output is a hinder to seeing the possible errors shown by real warnings. >> > I find sometimes that a compiler will create excessive warnings on > something that isn't a problem. Sometimes the best solution is to > disable the warning globally with the build system rather than add a > mark on every occurrence in the source. > Yes, as I said I sometimes disable certain warnings even though I tend to use most of the ones provided by the compiler. Some compilers I have used take quite a bit of tuning on warning and error flags in order to make it usable (for my code, anyway). I had one for an embedded processor that would (in C99 mode) warn on things like a trailing comma on the last entry in an enum, which is perfectly good code. On the other hand, it silently accepted any missing prototypes and didn't seem fazed when prototypes, definitions, and function uses failed to match. > One issue with using pragma's to disable warnings is if you code base > needs to work with a variety of compilers, the pragma's may well be > different for different compilers so the disable code gets ugly with all > the conditionals to control it for each compiler. Correct. Using pragmas to disable warnings is only suitable when your code is for a specific compiler (much of my code falls in this category), and only when it is used occasionally. No one wants code that is unreadable due to being filled with pragmas! > >>> >>> As an example, some compilers might give a warning at the end of a >>> non-void function if there isn't a return with a value there. >> >> And it /should/ give a warning, and the code should be corrected - >> running off the end of a function that claims to return a value, but >> doesn't do so, is an error in my book. (Unless you are meaning a >> function that normally returns in the middle somewhere, and the warning >> is for something that cannot happen - in which case my preference is to >> use a better compiler.) > > My case is the latter, you know that the function will never return by > falling off the end, but one compiler doesn't detect that it won't fall > off, but the other does and warns of the unreachable return. Sometimes > you don't have a lot of choice on compilers, you use what the > manufacturer of the chip/system provides. Yes, that kind of thing happens. We can try to make things work as best we can, but sometimes the world is against us. A fake "return 0" at the end of the function might be the answer - but then one compiler might warn about unreachable code. Another possibility is a bit of conditional compilation depending on the compiler - that's an ugly workaround, but might be worth considering. There are no right answers to such situations. >> >>> Another >>> compiler might give an warning if you put the return there because IT >>> can see that it is unreachable. The only way out of this (other than to >>> disable the warning) is to (perhaps massively) rearrange code so that >>> all functions can at least potentially reach the end of every non-void >>> function. >> >> As I don't change toolchains in a project, different behaviour between >> compilers is not an issue here. If I re-use the same basic code in a >> different project with a completely different compiler, then such issues >> could occur, of course. >> > > The issue is mostly with internal standard libraries to provide common > functionality in varied systems. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 23:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o03nva53v1fgk8fo777cosagu580m7pol7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70815 |
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:28:20 +0200, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >It's a mute point anyway It's actually a moot point. A "moo" point is acceptable as well: https://youtu.be/8bo54wE_rJU
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 10:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtghdd$444$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70863 |
On 18/09/15 06:01, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:28:20 +0200, David Brown > <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> It's a mute point anyway > I guess I should keep quite now! > > It's actually a moot point. A "moo" point is acceptable as well: > > https://youtu.be/8bo54wE_rJU > Spell chequers are great, but can't fix every mistake :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 09:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mtghie$4dl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70870 |
On 18/09/15 09:20, David Brown wrote: > On 18/09/15 06:01, Robert Wessel wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:28:20 +0200, David Brown >> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>> It's a mute point anyway >> > > I guess I should keep quite now! Fairly now, yes. Nowish, so to speak. But don't overdo it. There should be just a trace of then about your mien. > Spell chequers are great, but can't fix every mistake :-) That's why we have schools. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 14:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtguov$k5c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70871 |
On 18/09/15 10:23, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 18/09/15 09:20, David Brown wrote: >> On 18/09/15 06:01, Robert Wessel wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:28:20 +0200, David Brown >>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> >>>> It's a mute point anyway >>> >> >> I guess I should keep quite now! > > Fairly now, yes. Nowish, so to speak. But don't overdo it. There should > be just a trace of then about your mien. > >> Spell chequers are great, but can't fix every mistake :-) > > That's why we have schools. > No, that's why we have Usenet - it's a self-correcting medium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnlhc3enjd.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #70871 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 18/09/15 09:20, David Brown wrote:
>> On 18/09/15 06:01, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:28:20 +0200, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a mute point anyway
>>
>> I guess I should keep quite now!
>
> Fairly now, yes. Nowish, so to speak. But don't overdo it. There should
> be just a trace of then about your mien.
That was really mien!
>> Spell chequers are great, but can't fix every mistake :-)
>
> That's why we have schools.
So do fish.
--
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 | Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 16:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <44fv2bbgp9.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> |
| In reply to | #70870 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > Spell chequers are great, but can't fix every mistake :-) That's "draughts." You're welcome. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 17:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55FC830E.4010409@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #70908 |
On 09/18/2015 04:44 PM, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> Spell chequers are great, but can't fix every mistake :-) > > That's "draughts." No, he's obviously referring to the fruit of the chequer tree, Sorbus torminalis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbus_torminalis#Uses_and_etymology>. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web