Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #24707 > unrolled thread
| Started by | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 192 — 45 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-08-22 19:50 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded fmassei@gmail.com - 2012-08-22 11:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 14:22 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-22 18:43 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 12:08 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-22 12:32 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-22 20:45 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-22 22:20 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 10:43 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:14 +0200
[OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-23 13:27 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-22 13:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 00:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-23 00:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2012-08-23 09:48 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-22 15:56 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 10:49 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 08:32 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 14:49 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-23 17:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded fmassei@gmail.com - 2012-08-23 08:43 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-23 17:52 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:41 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-23 17:42 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-23 17:43 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 18:54 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:51 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-24 06:21 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-03 16:55 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 13:36 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2012-08-27 06:05 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 12:56 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-29 21:10 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:37 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:15 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:52 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 07:51 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-26 23:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-22 17:43 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-08-23 20:17 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 15:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 17:53 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 19:02 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 20:53 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 21:33 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 11:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 08:04 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 21:08 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 21:37 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 15:13 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-23 10:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-23 13:00 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 06:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 09:06 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 11:31 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:45 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:16 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:37 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:40 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 15:01 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 22:03 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 17:11 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-26 11:46 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 03:07 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 12:22 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 09:35 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 17:28 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:00 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 14:23 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:26 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 15:02 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 22:00 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:50 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:20 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 17:32 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-25 17:55 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 18:49 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:23 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:30 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 02:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 02:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 18:02 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 09:18 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 02:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 13:35 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 02:10 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 15:59 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 17:26 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:50 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:21 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:27 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:36 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-06 14:41 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 17:50 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:13 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 19:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-09 11:12 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:37 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 19:22 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:14 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 23:13 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-26 00:28 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 11:15 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 17:33 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 18:59 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 14:07 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-08-22 22:37 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 15:16 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-08-22 22:26 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-08-23 02:07 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 22:42 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-23 00:54 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 16:16 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2012-08-23 13:10 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 02:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 13:58 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2012-08-24 23:12 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-08-25 21:35 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-25 14:59 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-26 12:34 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2012-08-25 23:52 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201208.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-08-30 03:18 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-27 13:41 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:23 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-29 10:55 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 03:14 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 11:18 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:18 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 20:06 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 21:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 00:19 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 01:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 08:26 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 07:36 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 17:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-28 06:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 12:27 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 19:11 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 13:38 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 21:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 21:54 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 21:56 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 16:09 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 22:14 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 18:25 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 18:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 18:45 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 19:24 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:00 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 23:47 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 01:27 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:20 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 00:55 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 16:43 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:01 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-27 23:16 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 17:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 03:16 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:07 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 13:47 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 16:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-31 17:40 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 00:59 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> - 2012-09-03 00:31 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 08:31 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 09:13 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 15:38 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 18:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 17:04 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 23:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Herbert Rosenau <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2012-09-03 21:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 23:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2012-09-03 19:37 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-04 10:14 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:18 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-28 01:40 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:29 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 21:11 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 01:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:12 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 18:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:08 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-24 16:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bcd19f5-6b88-4c76-bde4-6e91ee0d96d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24737 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:42:46 PM UTC-7, James Kuyper wrote: > [Linus's] biggest complaints about C++ were about the maintainability of the > > code. If his complaints are valid, ... Nothing to worry about there. Carry on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7IqdnYpQqOi476vNnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #24729 |
pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) writes: >I hope he's completely dissatisfied and enraged. The last time he got pissed >off at one of his development tools, he took a few weeks to build a >replacement and now we have git. Imagine the same thing happening to the >compiler. Of course, there are already a number of good C based compiler offerings, depending on what you are looking for, so I don't think that people who are religious about using C for their compiler have to worry that much. PCC comes to mind, as well as OpenWatcom, which, I think, is implemented in C. -- Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-24 02:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36a33495-6dbd-49bc-a36e-59dd1f479902@k3g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24773 |
On Aug 23, 7:10 pm, Aaron W. Hsu <arcf...@sacrideo.us> wrote: > pac...@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) writes: > >I hope he's completely dissatisfied and enraged. The last time he got pissed > >off at one of his development tools, he took a few weeks to build a > >replacement and now we have git. Imagine the same thing happening to the > >compiler. > > Of course, there are already a number of good C based compiler > offerings, depending on what you are looking for, so I don't think > that people who are religious about using C for their compiler have > to worry that much. PCC comes to mind, as well as OpenWatcom, which, > I think, is implemented in C. this whole conversation strikes me as bizzare. A kind of level confusion. It reminds of one of my collegues who came out with "C++ is upwards compatible with C because it is implemented in C" and couldn't see what was wrong with that statement. (I'll accpt that some people porting a compiler might care what it was implemented in)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-24 13:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <K4CdnXw67Y5FXarNnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@bestweb.net> |
| In reply to | #24829 |
On 8/24/2012 5:15 AM, Nick Keighley wrote: [...] > this whole conversation strikes me as bizzare. A kind of level > confusion. It reminds of one of my collegues who came out with "C++ is > upwards compatible with C because it is implemented in C" and couldn't > see what was wrong with that statement. "Assembler must be upwards compatible with C, because 'as' is written in C." "FORTRAN must be upwards compatible with C, because gnu FORTRAN is written in C." (I think.) Etc., etc., etc. > (I'll accpt that some people porting a compiler might care what it was > implemented in) Agreed. -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-24 23:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k191oh$5u8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24864 |
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:58:46 -0400, Kenneth Brody wrote: > On 8/24/2012 5:15 AM, Nick Keighley wrote: > [...] >> this whole conversation strikes me as bizzare. A kind of level >> confusion. It reminds of one of my collegues who came out with "C++ is >> upwards compatible with C because it is implemented in C" and couldn't >> see what was wrong with that statement. > > "Assembler must be upwards compatible with C, because 'as' is written in C." > > "FORTRAN must be upwards compatible with C, because gnu FORTRAN is written > in C." (I think.) The name of the language is "Fortran". It's been Fortran since the Fortran 1990 standard. The GNU Fortran frontend is written in C. Some of the GNU Fortran runtime is written in m4. The m4 files when processed generates Fortran code. The Fortran code is then compiled by GNU Fortran. -- steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-25 21:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6f7894b62314b9cc3982c03c15467f83@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #24875 |
"Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:58:46 -0400, Kenneth Brody wrote: > > > On 8/24/2012 5:15 AM, Nick Keighley wrote: > > [...] > >> this whole conversation strikes me as bizzare. A kind of level > >> confusion. It reminds of one of my collegues who came out with "C++ is > >> upwards compatible with C because it is implemented in C" and couldn't > >> see what was wrong with that statement. > > > > "Assembler must be upwards compatible with C, because 'as' is written in C." > > > > "FORTRAN must be upwards compatible with C, because gnu FORTRAN is written > > in C." (I think.) > > The name of the language is "Fortran". It's been Fortran since > the Fortran 1990 standard. So what? FORTRAN is no less FORTRAN now then it was then. Perhaps he was talking about gnu's shitty F77 compiler. Just because people born after 1990 don't know an acronym from a proper name doesn't change reality. > The GNU Fortran frontend is written in C. Some of the GNU > Fortran runtime is written in m4. The m4 files when processed > generates Fortran code. The Fortran code is then compiled by > GNU Fortran. OMG no. You didn't just write "Some of the GNU Fortran runtime is written in m4." Oh yes you did. Just another reason not to use gnu's shitty toolchain. How do you motherfuckers sleep at night? Goodbye to gcc's grotesque bloat and "i was drinking that night" design, goodbye to Stallmanesque Marxism, hello clang/LLVM!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-25 14:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <reung9-lqo.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
| In reply to | #24957 |
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote: > "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > > The GNU Fortran frontend is written in C. Some of the GNU > > Fortran runtime is written in m4. The m4 files when processed > > generates Fortran code. The Fortran code is then compiled by > > GNU Fortran. > > OMG no. You didn't just write "Some of the GNU Fortran runtime is written in > m4." > > Oh yes you did. Just another reason not to use gnu's shitty toolchain. How > do you motherfuckers sleep at night? > > Goodbye to gcc's grotesque bloat and "i was drinking that night" design, > goodbye to Stallmanesque Marxism, hello clang/LLVM! Let me get this straight: you call GCC marxist because, unlike clang/LLVM, it doesn't have the quality of language purity? Because that's basically what people seem to like about clang/LLVM: that's it's "pure" C++, which somehow magically makes it better designed. (It may or may not be better designed than GCC, but C++ doesn't bestow that quality.) You also seem to forget that M4 and Fortran share a common history. M4 was originally used to provide control constructs which early Fortran lacked. I seem to recall "meta-programming" being all the rage, although apparently it's less useful if the name of the meta-programming language isn't synonymous with the target language. Because, you know, then it's not pure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 12:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1883a25d87d083c0d69fdeeed9a5c1d9@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #24958 |
William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> wrote: > Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote: > > "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > The GNU Fortran frontend is written in C. Some of the GNU > > > Fortran runtime is written in m4. The m4 files when processed > > > generates Fortran code. The Fortran code is then compiled by > > > GNU Fortran. > > > > OMG no. You didn't just write "Some of the GNU Fortran runtime is written in > > m4." > > > > Oh yes you did. Just another reason not to use gnu's shitty toolchain. How > > do you motherfuckers sleep at night? > > > > Goodbye to gcc's grotesque bloat and "i was drinking that night" design, > > goodbye to Stallmanesque Marxism, hello clang/LLVM! > > Let me get this straight: you call GCC marxist because, unlike clang/LLVM, > it doesn't have the quality of language purity? No, gcc is Marxist because Stallman is Marxist. Sorry for any confusion. > Because that's basically what people seem to like about clang/LLVM: that's > it's "pure" C++, which somehow magically makes it better designed. (It may > or may not be better designed than GCC, but C++ doesn't bestow that > quality.) I agree with you. > > You also seem to forget that M4 and Fortran share a common history. No they don't. Fortran was developed at IBM on IBM machines a very long time ago, around 1957. This was well before there was such a thing as UNIX or m4. > M4 was originally used to provide control constructs which early Fortran > lacked. I don't know if you're referring to RATFOR, I don't know how that was implemented. But that was in UNIX and IBM didn't need it. There were people using FORTRAN happily then and now on those machines. The compilers were totally different from anything that came later on other systems. m4 is really not pretty. IBM had and has today much better (as in more powerful, more expressive, and more simple to use) preprocessors than are available on UNIX. Those can be used for FORTRAN as well, with a bit of effort. > I seem to recall "meta-programming" being all the rage, although > apparently it's less useful if the name of the meta-programming language > isn't synonymous with the target language. Because, you know, then it's > not pure. Metaprogramming may have been popular on minis, I don't know. But as far as I know it was never popular on large systems because large systems work was always about getting stuff done in a simple and high performance way rather than inventing cutesy names for broken ideas and then turning them into fads. And anyway I wasn't arguing purity when expressing my loathing of gcc and everything related to it. I just hate bloat, convoluted code and communism. Most other stuff doesn't bother me that much ;-) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-25 23:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k1bof0$hhc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24957 |
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:35:29 +0000, Anonymous wrote: > "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:58:46 -0400, Kenneth Brody wrote: >> >> > On 8/24/2012 5:15 AM, Nick Keighley wrote: >> > [...] >> >> this whole conversation strikes me as bizzare. A kind of level >> >> confusion. It reminds of one of my collegues who came out with "C++ is >> >> upwards compatible with C because it is implemented in C" and couldn't >> >> see what was wrong with that statement. >> > >> > "Assembler must be upwards compatible with C, because 'as' is written in C." >> > >> > "FORTRAN must be upwards compatible with C, because gnu FORTRAN is written >> > in C." (I think.) >> >> The name of the language is "Fortran". It's been Fortran since >> the Fortran 1990 standard. > > So what? FORTRAN is no less FORTRAN now then it was then. Perhaps he was > talking about gnu's shitty F77 compiler. Except even your spelling in all caps is incorrect. If you take that time to look at the Fortran standards, you find that the 'ORTRAN' is written in a small cap font. After 25 years, is it asking to much to spell the name of the language correctly? GNU GCC does not have a shitty F77 compiler. g77 was deprecated years ago. Since April 20, 2005, the Fortran compiler in GCC is gfortran, and for the last few years gfortran has been competitive with all commercial available Fortran compilers. >> The GNU Fortran frontend is written in C. Some of the GNU >> Fortran runtime is written in m4. The m4 files when processed >> generates Fortran code. The Fortran code is then compiled by >> GNU Fortran. > > OMG no. You didn't just write "Some of the GNU Fortran runtime is written in > m4." Yes, I did. But, you failed to read the next sentence. When you build GCC with gfortran support, the m4 files are processed to generated some Fortran code for the runtime library. That Fortran code is then compiled by the just built Fortran compiler. http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/libgfortran/m4/ Your response is a classic example of someone who does not understand the principle of using the right tool to get a job done. > Oh yes you did. Just another reason not to use gnu's shitty toolchain. How > do you motherfuckers sleep at night? I sleep quite nicely. > Goodbye to gcc's grotesque bloat and "i was drinking that night" design, > goodbye to Stallmanesque Marxism, hello clang/LLVM! Have you tried compiling any Fortran code with LLVM? LLVM does not have its own Fortran compiler. It actually uses gfortran. http://llvm.org/Features.html "Front-ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, etc based on the GCC 4.2 parsers." I can assure you that GCC 4.2.x's Fortran parser is fairly bad compared to any of the newer versions. -- steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201208.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-30 03:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ae96fae4fd805091554e6f99d466c9a3@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
| In reply to | #24965 |
"Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:35:29 +0000, Anonymous wrote: > > > "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:58:46 -0400, Kenneth Brody wrote: > >> > >> > On 8/24/2012 5:15 AM, Nick Keighley wrote: > >> > [...] > >> >> this whole conversation strikes me as bizzare. A kind of level > >> >> confusion. It reminds of one of my collegues who came out with "C++ is > >> >> upwards compatible with C because it is implemented in C" and couldn't > >> >> see what was wrong with that statement. > >> > > >> > "Assembler must be upwards compatible with C, because 'as' is written in C." > >> > > >> > "FORTRAN must be upwards compatible with C, because gnu FORTRAN is written > >> > in C." (I think.) > >> > >> The name of the language is "Fortran". It's been Fortran since > >> the Fortran 1990 standard. > > > > So what? FORTRAN is no less FORTRAN now then it was then. Perhaps he was > > talking about gnu's shitty F77 compiler. > > Except even your spelling in all caps is incorrect. If you take that time > to look at the Fortran standards, you find that the 'ORTRAN' is written in > a small cap font. After 25 years, is it asking to much to spell the > name of the language correctly? Many people have no respect for tradition and they seem to think everything was created after they were born. In reality, FORTRAN was designed and produced by IBM and came to the rest of the world around 1957. That language and those implementations are still in regular use. The fact a new language called Fortran that is a superset of FORTRAN was standardized does not change the fact FORTRAN was and still is FORTRAN. Consider a few references: "The Origins of FORTRAN" presentation by Peter Crouch. "American National Standard FORTRAN" USAS X3.9-1966 "American National Standard Programming Language FORTRAN" X3.9-1978 It's funny how you think 25 years is such a long time since FORTRAN has been around for almost 56 years. > GNU GCC does not have a shitty F77 compiler. g77 was deprecated years > ago. Ok, but doesn't gfortran support F77 and isn't F77 FORTRAN? I mean, even you capitalized the name ;-) > Since April 20, 2005, the Fortran compiler in GCC is gfortran, and for the > last few years gfortran has been competitive with all commercial available > Fortran compilers. On what basis do you claim gfortran is competitive? I'm not saying it isn't (I certainly doubt that it is but I didn't say that until you said it is). gcc gives very poor diagnostics and the code generation on platforms other than Intel is known to be subpar. I'm sure Solaris Studio spanks gfortran badly on SPARC but thankfully I haven't had to test it. > >> The GNU Fortran frontend is written in C. Some of the GNU > >> Fortran runtime is written in m4. The m4 files when processed > >> generates Fortran code. The Fortran code is then compiled by > >> GNU Fortran. > > > > OMG no. You didn't just write "Some of the GNU Fortran runtime is written in > > m4." > > Yes, I did. But, you failed to read the next sentence. When you build > GCC with gfortran support, the m4 files are processed to generated some > Fortran code for the runtime library. That Fortran code is then compiled > by the just built Fortran compiler. I understood you the first time. I object to the complexity of using an arcane scripting language in a compilation system and to gcc's general approach of expediency uberalles instead of discipline. Total ad-hoc "design" and complete absence of engineering, that's gcc. > Your response is a classic example of someone who does not understand > the principle of using the right tool to get a job done. I don't agree, but I do say yours is a classic example of having no discipline in design or coding. Anything goes, right buddy? > > Goodbye to gcc's grotesque bloat and "i was drinking that night" design, > > goodbye to Stallmanesque Marxism, hello clang/LLVM! > > Have you tried compiling any Fortran code with LLVM? LLVM does not have > its own Fortran compiler. It actually uses gfortran. Well no, I haven't. I use IBM FORTRAN IV and occasionally their VS FORTRAN, and Solaris Studio. Thankfully I only hear about gcc from my disadvantaged friends. > http://llvm.org/Features.html > > "Front-ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, etc based on the GCC 4.2 parsers." > > I can assure you that GCC 4.2.x's Fortran parser is fairly bad compared to > any of the newer versions. I don't dispute that. I'm just happy llvm will be an alternative for people currently forced to use the shitty gnu tools. Eventually I suspect gcc will only exist on Linux since the FSF serfs want to eliminate the LGPL on the runtime. Free, open source software (BSD or MIT licensed) will probably move to clang/llvm. FreeBSD moving away from gcc to clang is a great milestone in free software history and against the tyranny of the FSF and its lemmings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 13:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j-CdnXDJ343VLKbNnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@bestweb.net> |
| In reply to | #24875 |
On 8/24/2012 7:12 PM, Steven G. Kargl wrote: > On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:58:46 -0400, Kenneth Brody wrote: > >> On 8/24/2012 5:15 AM, Nick Keighley wrote: >> [...] >>> this whole conversation strikes me as bizzare. A kind of level >>> confusion. It reminds of one of my collegues who came out with "C++ is >>> upwards compatible with C because it is implemented in C" and couldn't >>> see what was wrong with that statement. >> >> "Assembler must be upwards compatible with C, because 'as' is written in C." >> >> "FORTRAN must be upwards compatible with C, because gnu FORTRAN is written >> in C." (I think.) > > The name of the language is "Fortran". It's been Fortran since > the Fortran 1990 standard. Noted. Note, too, that the last time I programmed in it, it was spelled "FORTRAN". :-) > The GNU Fortran frontend is written in C. Some of the GNU > Fortran runtime is written in m4. The m4 files when processed > generates Fortran code. The Fortran code is then compiled by > GNU Fortran. And m4 was probably written in C as well. Which just disproves your colleague even further. Of course, this is probably one of those "don't confuse me with facts" scenarios. -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnoblwas9z.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25116 |
Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> writes:
> On 8/24/2012 7:12 PM, Steven G. Kargl wrote:
[...]
>> The name of the language is "Fortran". It's been Fortran since
>> the Fortran 1990 standard.
>
> Noted. Note, too, that the last time I programmed in it, it was spelled
> "FORTRAN". :-)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran> shows the cover of a Programmer's
Reference Manual with the name "Fortran". It was published in 1956.
But there's more to it than that; see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran#Capitalization>.
[...]
Shall we get back to C now?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 10:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oKydndBgdbbFsKPNnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@bestweb.net> |
| In reply to | #25145 |
On 8/27/2012 6:23 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> writes: [... "FORTRAN" vs "Fortran" ...] > Shall we get back to C now? Agreed. Sub-thread dropped. At least we all agree it's "C" and not "c". :-) -- Kenneth Brody Note that Thunderbird wants to fix the "misspelled" "Fortran", and offers "FORTRAN" as its first suggestion. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-25 03:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d27d128b-d721-4adc-b666-3a80bd63f50c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24829 |
בתאריך יום שישי, 24 באוגוסט 2012 10:15:49 UTC+1, מאת Nick Keighley: > On Aug 23, 7:10 pm, Aaron W. Hsu <arcf...@sacrideo.us> wrote: > > this whole conversation strikes me as bizzare. A kind of level > confusion. It reminds of one of my collegues who came out with "C++ is > upwards compatible with C because it is implemented in C" and couldn't > see what was wrong with that statement. > The first C++ compilers spat out C code, which was then fed to the C compiler. Any language can be implemented in any other. The colleague had probably heard a garbled version of the first statement, and wasn't aware of the second.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-25 11:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1a8q2$b7i$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24901 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > The first C++ compilers spat out C code, which was then fed to the C > compiler. Any language can be implemented in any other. The colleague > had probably heard a garbled version of the first statement, and wasn't > aware of the second. If I'm not mistaken, that trick ceassed to work once exceptions were thrown in the mix. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-25 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr4qug4qp.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #24901 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> בתאריך יום שישי, 24 באוגוסט 2012 10:15:49 UTC+1, מאת Nick Keighley:
>> On Aug 23, 7:10 pm, Aaron W. Hsu <arcf...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>>
>> this whole conversation strikes me as bizzare. A kind of level
>> confusion. It reminds of one of my collegues who came out with "C++ is
>> upwards compatible with C because it is implemented in C" and couldn't
>> see what was wrong with that statement.
>>
> The first C++ compilers spat out C code, which was then fed to the C
> compiler. Any language can be implemented in any other. The colleague
> had probably heard a garbled version of the first statement, and wasn't
> aware of the second.
Even so, the existence of a C++ implementation that generates C code
doesn't imply anything about upwards compatibility. A C program
that uses `new` as an identifier is still an invalid C++ program.
I think it's sufficient to say that the colleage was wrong (on multiple
levels).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 20:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12c3eb3a-f1a9-493b-a58b-c572729ec037@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24938 |
On Saturday, August 25, 2012 7:18:22 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > > בתאריך יום שישי, 24 באוגוסט 2012 10:15:49 UTC+1, מאת Nick Keighley: > > >> this whole conversation strikes me as bizzare. A kind of level > >> confusion. It reminds of one of my collegues who came out with "C++ is > >> upwards compatible with C because it is implemented in C" and couldn't > >> see what was wrong with that statement. > > > The first C++ compilers spat out C code, which was then fed to the C > > compiler. Any language can be implemented in any other. The colleague > > had probably heard a garbled version of the first statement, and wasn't > > aware of the second. > > Even so, the existence of a C++ implementation that generates C code > doesn't imply anything about upwards compatibility. A C program > that uses `new` as an identifier is still an invalid C++ program. > Even their main function aren't compatible, how could they be compatible then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 21:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnharpc74m.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25052 |
lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 7:18:22 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> Even so, the existence of a C++ implementation that generates C code
>> doesn't imply anything about upwards compatibility. A C program
>> that uses `new` as an identifier is still an invalid C++ program.
>
> Even their main function aren't compatible, how could they be
> compatible then?
Huh?
int main(void) { }
is perfectly valid in both C and C++, as is
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { }
C++ adopted the "(void)" syntax specifically to maintain compatibility
with C.
Even the preferred C++ form:
int main() { }
, though there's some question about whether it's completely valid in C,
is accepted without complaint by most or all C compilers.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 00:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0e36e19-d5e5-43a5-b148-3dd291f1095d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25059 |
On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:04:57 AM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Saturday, August 25, 2012 7:18:22 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Even so, the existence of a C++ implementation that generates C code
> >> doesn't imply anything about upwards compatibility. A C program
> >> that uses `new` as an identifier is still an invalid C++ program.
>
> > Even their main function aren't compatible, how could they be
> > compatible then?
>
> int main(void) { }
>
> is perfectly valid in both C and C++, as is
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { }
>
> C++ adopted the "(void)" syntax specifically to maintain compatibility
> with C.
>
> Even the preferred C++ form:
>
> int main() { }
>
> , though there's some question about whether it's completely valid in C,
> is accepted without complaint by most or all C compilers.
>
I saw some C++ code like :)
void main()
{
/*...*/
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 01:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnd32cd98x.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25070 |
lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> I saw some C++ code like :)
>
> void main()
> {
> /*...*/
> }
How is that relevant?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web