Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60841 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 432 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 10:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:25 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:35 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 07:52 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:15 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:44 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-24 13:01 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 04:16 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-24 04:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 16:07 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-25 22:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 14:29 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-26 15:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:43 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-04-23 09:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:03 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:53 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:37 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:12 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:46 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 08:47 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Fred K <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 07:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 16:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 01:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 10:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 18:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 23:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 08:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-26 12:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-28 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-09 13:14 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 08:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-10 12:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-05-10 13:22 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 18:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 11:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 08:24 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 21:15 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 19:40 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-13 21:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 23:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-14 00:19 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 04:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 04:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-14 11:34 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:24 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-17 10:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 13:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 09:51 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 05:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 01:31 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-13 21:05 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 00:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 02:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 05:02 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-15 13:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-16 02:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:13 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:36 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 12:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 14:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 13:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 14:20 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:51 +0100
I'm starting a new thread (Was: Spurious diagnostic messages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 11:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 18:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 00:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-21 12:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 13:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-22 09:11 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:15 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 12:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:26 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 14:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 09:28 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-22 21:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:36 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 14:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:38 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 18:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 23:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-22 18:28 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 16:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 16:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 00:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 23:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:10 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:42 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 20:25 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 07:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 18:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages "Bartc" <bartc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-01 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 11:48 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 18:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 13:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 21:07 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 23:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 15:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-24 22:45 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-25 18:59 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-25 20:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-31 13:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-25 12:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:11 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 11:26 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-26 22:02 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-26 14:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 16:58 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-26 16:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 08:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 20:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 08:47 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 20:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 16:54 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-31 01:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 06:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 16:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:36 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-31 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-01 08:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:08 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:15 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:24 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-30 13:30 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:12 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:36 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 18:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-26 11:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-26 15:35 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 00:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 00:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 13:43 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 00:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:16 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 12:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:42 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 09:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-24 22:22 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-01 20:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 18:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 14:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tonton Th <tTh@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-08-01 22:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-02 09:02 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 14:23 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 12:10 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:01 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:16 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-03 14:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 10:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 16:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 12:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 13:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 13:37 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 13:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:34 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 11:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 10:47 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:33 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 10:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-06 22:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:44 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 10:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 13:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 14:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-20 21:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:17 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:15 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 11:46 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-23 17:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:49 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 15:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 22:51 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-23 22:50 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-23 23:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 00:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 02:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 07:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 14:24 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 09:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 15:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-24 13:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 19:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-25 00:51 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 02:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 13:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 15:55 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 18:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-29 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-26 13:27 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 21:09 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 00:03 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 00:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 01:15 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 13:34 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 14:07 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 21:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-28 17:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 10:36 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 16:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 16:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:39 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 22:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 21:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-10 18:08 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-11 15:02 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 14:08 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-21 13:27 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 15:30 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 10:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 14:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 20:16 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 09:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 22:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 10:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-28 06:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 10:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 10:32 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 17:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-28 15:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 15:03 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-28 14:35 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 16:54 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-29 10:17 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 10:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 21:16 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 20:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 02:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-28 03:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 22:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 22:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:52 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 12:11 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 10:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 14:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 22:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 17:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:34 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 14:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> - 2015-05-29 15:28 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-29 15:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 16:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-17 15:46 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 11:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-18 08:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:09 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:03 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 14:41 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:39 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 13:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 19:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-14 09:54 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-14 08:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-14 14:37 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-15 16:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:44 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 06:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> - 2015-04-29 04:07 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 09:33 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700
Page 10 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 22 Next page →
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-20 16:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55AD590C.4050002@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #66053 |
On 07/20/2015 04:18 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> writes:
...
>> It'd be relatively easy to co-opt an unused format specifier as an
>> optional externsion (I'd pick "%?") to mean
>>
>> "The compiler chooses based on the types of the varargs"
>>
>> That'd be backwards compatible relatively easy to implement in compilers
>> that already do format-string <-> type checking.
>
> Assuming that printf() is implemented in C, how would it retrieve the
> value of the corresponding argument?
>
> If printf() sees a "%d" specifier, it knows it needs to invoke
> va_arg(ap, int);
>
> If it sees "%?", what does it do?
>
> Or would the compiler translate
>
> printf("%?", 42)
>
> to
>
> printf("%d", 42)
>
> ? Does that imply that it would only work if the format string is a
> literal, or at least known at compile time?
That's my understanding of the suggestion - or at least, it's the only
way I can imagine that anything like this suggestion could actually be
implemented. It's not clear to me whether Gareth thought that issue
through. The format-string type checking he refers to only applies when
the format string is a string literal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-21 07:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877fpukncq.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #66054 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > That's my understanding of the suggestion - or at least, it's the only > way I can imagine that anything like this suggestion could actually be > implemented. It's not clear to me whether Gareth thought that issue > through. Ahhhh .... you may have a point there. I'd argue that the vast majority of printf() format specifiers _are_ known at compile time - string literals or one-of-may-string-literals -- and I'd be happy to have that extension for string literals only. Runtime-variable format specifiers are a relative corner case. > The format-string type checking he refers to only applies when the > format string is a string literal. Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-21 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <71Crx.382181$ly2.271034@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #66086 |
On 7/21/15 2:59 AM, Gareth Owen wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > >> That's my understanding of the suggestion - or at least, it's the only >> way I can imagine that anything like this suggestion could actually be >> implemented. It's not clear to me whether Gareth thought that issue >> through. > > Ahhhh .... you may have a point there. > > I'd argue that the vast majority of printf() format specifiers _are_ > known at compile time - string literals or one-of-may-string-literals -- > and I'd be happy to have that extension for string literals only. > > Runtime-variable format specifiers are a relative corner case. > >> The format-string type checking he refers to only applies when the >> format string is a string literal. > > Yes. > Depends on if you design your program for internationalization or not. The classic way to handle easy to internationalized programs is to place most strings (including format strings) in a resource file that can be changed for the language, and pull in the string based on a key (sometimes, but not always the base version of the string).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-21 07:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bnf6knnn.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #66053 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Or would the compiler translate
>
> printf("%?", 42)
>
> to
>
> printf("%d", 42)
This.
> ? Does that imply that it would only work if the format string is a
> literal, or at least known at compile time?
Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-20 23:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mojru2$edj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66043 |
On 20/07/2015 19:52, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> Take the old debate about format codes in printf() calls. I keep saying
>> that having to embed %llU etc in format strings is wrong; people keep
>> disagreeing.
>
> I don't think "wrong" is the best word. I do agree that having to
> specify the type of an object when printing its value is annoying. The
> problem is that avoiding that annoyance would require changes to the
> language, and it's not clear that the benefits of such changes would be
> worth the cost.
>
> printf format strings are a hack; their main virtue is that they work.
They work given all the right information. So would be perfect with
generated code for example. It's getting that information and keeping it
maintained that's the issue.
>> Yet just a couple of days ago I was debugging something and I need to
>> print out HWND and UINT values, when I had to pause; were they 32-bits
>> or 64-bits? I had to take a guess and hope it worked.
>
> You didn't *have* to guess. You could have converted to a 64-bit type
> and printed that value.
>
> HWND is a pointer type;
Isn't it supposed to be opaque? Yes you can trawl through the docs, and
find that HWND is a typedef for HANDLE, which is a typedef for PVOID,
which is a typedef for void*. But you shouldn't need to. There are also
dozens of the things.
I think it's safe to assume that UINT is an
> unsigned integer type.
>
> HWND h = ...;
> UINT u = ...;
> printf("h = %p, u = %lu\n", (void*)h, (unsigned long)u);
OK, so we already specify type info for h and u in their declarations,
then specify type info in the format string, and here were specifying a
third lot with the casts!
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-20 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnvbdee94a.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66071 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 20/07/2015 19:52, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
>>> Yet just a couple of days ago I was debugging something and I need to
>>> print out HWND and UINT values, when I had to pause; were they 32-bits
>>> or 64-bits? I had to take a guess and hope it worked.
>>
>> You didn't *have* to guess. You could have converted to a 64-bit type
>> and printed that value.
>>
>> HWND is a pointer type;
>
> Isn't it supposed to be opaque? Yes you can trawl through the docs, and
> find that HWND is a typedef for HANDLE, which is a typedef for PVOID,
> which is a typedef for void*. But you shouldn't need to. There are also
> dozens of the things.
I don't know; I haven't done much Windows programming.
If it's supposed to be opaque, then you're violating that opacity
by printing its value; you can't really expect to have a clean and
convenient way to do that. If you don't want to take advantage of
the fact that it's (implemented as) a pointer, you *could* memcpy
the value of the HWND object to an array of unsigned char of the
same size, and print the elements in hex. That's the most general
way to print the contents of an object.
> I think it's safe to assume that UINT is an
>> unsigned integer type.
>>
>> HWND h = ...;
>> UINT u = ...;
>> printf("h = %p, u = %lu\n", (void*)h, (unsigned long)u);
>
> OK, so we already specify type info for h and u in their declarations,
> then specify type info in the format string, and here were specifying a
> third lot with the casts!
The "third lot" is not specifying the types of h and u; it's
specifying the type they're converted to for printing. But yes,
you have to know a thing or two to be able to determine the most
appropriate type, and what to do with the converted result once
you have it.
I'm not saying this is a model of programming elegance and
intuitively obvious abstraction. I'm saying that this is the way
you can do it in C.
Sure, it's ugly. Sure, it can be done more cleanly in some other
languages. Sure, one of those languages could be some hypothetical
future version of C with just a few new features added (though the
design of those features would be non-trivial).
I'm not defending C, I'm just describing it.
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-24 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfna8ulgtzv.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66024 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 20/07/2015 17:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > [Binary literals] > >>> A few C compilers in fact already implement them as extensions. With >>> gcc, they are written as 0b10101. >> >> You keep focusing on implementation. To me implementation is at >> best a secondary consideration here. I object on principle to >> the kitchen-sink mentality of adding any easy feature anyone can >> think of, just because it's easy. Whether you like it or not, >> when it comes to C, your opinion counts for almost nothing. > > Just mine, or everyone's? Partly one and partly the other. Generically, the opinion of any particular individual doesn't count for very much. Specifically, your opinion doesn't count for very much, because you have a tendency to disregard considerations that WG14 seems to believe are important - the consequences for library functions, to give one example. > With these things opinions is what we have > to work with. Some people think that personal opinions are the /only/ factors that should be weighed in evaluating a proposed language change. I am not one of those people; nor are, I suspect, most of the members of WG14. If all you ever have to offer is your opinion, it's very unlikely to be convincing in such cases. > Because any binary number can be transformed into a > decimal or hexadecimal one, that can always be used as an argument for > never needing such a feature. > > Then, it can only a matter of opinion whether adding this feature is > going to be worthwhile or not. I'm sorry to hear that you think that. I do not. > *IMO*, if people ever have to waste time converting numbers because > binary is not supported, or need to waste more time devising esoteric > macros if it's important that significant bit patterns stay visible > and easily maintained (so you can't just have them as a comment), then > that is plenty of reason to have it. Yes, I understand your opinion. I don't find it compelling, for reasons I have explained. >> It would be nice if you would recognize that fact and start phrasing >> your statements keeping that in mind. Otherwise it is just very >> tiresome to keep hearing. > > I get tired of putting forward the same arguments too! If you get tired of making the same arguments, stop making them. No one is forcing you to keep making the same arguments. > Take the old debate about format codes in printf() calls. I keep > saying that having to embed %llU etc in format strings is wrong; > people keep disagreeing. > > Yet just a couple of days ago I was debugging something and I need to > print out HWND and UINT values, when I had to pause; were they 32-bits > or 64-bits? I had to take a guess and hope it worked. This case provides a good example. In fact you did not have to make a guess. There's an easy way to print out such values without knowing their types, by converting the value to a known type, and using that type in the format string. When you ignore such fairly obvious possibilities, it undercuts your arguments about whether such features are worth adding. > *IMO* it's wrong that it works that way. But apparently my opinion is > worth nothing; it's me that's wrong, and C that is right by forcing > people to pot-shots at likely format specifiers when confronted with a > LONG or a HBITMAP or an LRESULT. Your opinion is never going to be worth very much until you learn to do a better job of listening to what the other side has to say. > And if everyone's opinion is equally worthless, then it's a miracle > that anything ever evolves! That might be true if opinions were the only things that matter. Fortunately some people have learned to look for facts and objective evidence in addition to listening to people's opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-24 22:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <moubjn$nv5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66314 |
On 24/07/2015 21:50, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[Binary literals]
>> Just mine, or everyone's?
>
> Partly one and partly the other. Generically, the opinion of any
> particular individual doesn't count for very much. Specifically,
> your opinion doesn't count for very much, because you have a
> tendency to disregard considerations that WG14 seems to believe
> are important - the consequences for library functions, to give
> one example.
You mentioned those consequences, but I'm not sure you've elaborated
what they might be.
If someone were to modify a C compiler so that 0b- literals were
available, what else /needs/ to change? I mean actually needs to change.
People can now write numbers like 0b10101. And ... that's it.
(I have a little C low-level lexer project which I used to establish an
upper limit of how fast C source can be processed (about 10M
lines/second on my machine).
I just added 0b- binary literals to it; it took 3 minutes. How long has
been spent in total in devising tortuous macros, or on schemes involving
using strings to represent Huffman codes, etc etc? How long has been
spent discussing it?!
It must be just about the simplest and most innocuous enhancement that
anyone could actually make to the language.)
>> Take the old debate about format codes in printf() calls. I keep
>> saying that having to embed %llU etc in format strings is wrong;
>> people keep disagreeing.
>>
>> Yet just a couple of days ago I was debugging something and I need to
>> print out HWND and UINT values, when I had to pause; were they 32-bits
>> or 64-bits? I had to take a guess and hope it worked.
>
> This case provides a good example. In fact you did not have to
> make a guess. There's an easy way to print out such values
> without knowing their types, by converting the value to a known
> type, and using that type in the format string. When you ignore
> such fairly obvious possibilities, it undercuts your arguments
> about whether such features are worth adding.
Like avoiding binary literals, they are all workarounds. As I said to
Keith, you've got (1) the original declaration; (2) a cast; (3) the type
code in the format specifier. You don't need all three! (1) is
sufficient, yet it could be buried deeply enough that it's a much better
idea for the language to take care of this detail.
The idea is not to be obliged to use workarounds; or have something that
might need constant updating as something else changes; or to clutter up
the code with irrelevant details; or to to be obliged to look up one of
a library's dozens or hundreds of idiosyncratic typedefs.
(I obviously think it's better that the language helps out here. To me
it's easier to write:
printf("%# %# %#",a,b,c);
instead of:
printf("%d %p %s\n",a,b,c);
and I also think it's easier to write:
printf("%# %# %#",a,b,c);
instead of:
printf("%f %f %llu\n",a,b,c);
In general, if I've got 3 things to print, I can write:
printf("%# %# %#",a,b,c);
without even needing to know what they are. I guess that's not worth
anything in your book.)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55b3dbb3.6408421@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #66316 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> In general, if I've got 3 things to print, I can write:
>
> printf("%# %# %#",a,b,c);
>
> without even needing to know what they are. I guess that's not worth
> anything in your book.)
In my book, I wouldn't trust it to do the Right Thing except for _very_
simplistic data.
(That said, I like the way Inform 6 handles this. But that _is_ a rather
specific kind of simplistic data, in general (literal strings or
decimal-only small integers, in text adventure messages), and in any
case, the process is very adaptable in ways that wouldn't be suitable
for a direct adaptation to C.)
Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 20:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mp0p5b$67c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66348 |
On 25/07/2015 19:59, Richard Bos wrote:
> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> In general, if I've got 3 things to print, I can write:
>>
>> printf("%# %# %#",a,b,c);
>>
>> without even needing to know what they are. I guess that's not worth
>> anything in your book.)
>
> In my book, I wouldn't trust it to do the Right Thing except for _very_
> simplistic data.
What /is/ the right thing? There are many languages where you just tell
it to print something and it will print it. If you want something more
fancy, then you need to be more specific. It is an eminently workable
approach everywhere except in the world of C it seems.
In C, an expression given to a printf function is going to be one of
integer, floating point, pointer, or struct.
Leaving aside structs for a minute, it is very easy to think up default
print formats for the first three (eg %d or %u, %f, and %p with the
requisite number of "l" modifiers).
It might necessary to get cute a little with pointers and have a %s
default for char* pointers.
And if it doesn't do quite what you want, then you don't use %#.
With value structs, that can just generate an error message. (It's
possible to expand %# to multiple items but it means expanding the
argument list and possibly re-evaluating the struct expression.
That's going beyond the remit of simply replacing the # in %..# by an
apt choice from d/u/f/p/s. Yes, that's all that is being asked.)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 13:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55bb7539.16747390@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #66352 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 25/07/2015 19:59, Richard Bos wrote:
> > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In general, if I've got 3 things to print, I can write:
> >>
> >> printf("%# %# %#",a,b,c);
> >>
> >> without even needing to know what they are. I guess that's not worth
> >> anything in your book.)
> >
> > In my book, I wouldn't trust it to do the Right Thing except for _very_
> > simplistic data.
>
> What /is/ the right thing?
Exactly my point. The language doesn't know. _I_ know, and it's
different for every program.
For Inform programs, I can trust the language to get it right because
the Right Thing will almost always be to print the number straight, as
an integer (there aren't any others in the ZMachine), unaligned.
For Basic programs, I can usually not trust the language to get it
right, at least not for numerical data. That's why I'll usually use
PRINT AT (this being Sinclair Basic; I don't use it for serious
purposes.)
For C programs... forget it. I want it formatted _just_ right, and a
simple %d won't cut it. Except for debugging statements, and for
debugging statements, it's not onerous to have to think about using %d
rather than %s.
In other words: applications for which I find the default behaviour
sufficient in the majority of cases are rarely ones for which I'd use C.
In other languages, I might (and occasionally do) find the feature you
describe useful. In C, I don't.
Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnd1zdeh3x.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66316 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 24/07/2015 21:50, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
> [Binary literals]
>
>>> Just mine, or everyone's?
>>
>> Partly one and partly the other. Generically, the opinion of any
>> particular individual doesn't count for very much. Specifically,
>> your opinion doesn't count for very much, because you have a
>> tendency to disregard considerations that WG14 seems to believe
>> are important - the consequences for library functions, to give
>> one example.
>
> You mentioned those consequences, but I'm not sure you've elaborated
> what they might be.
>
> If someone were to modify a C compiler so that 0b- literals were
> available, what else /needs/ to change? [snip]
The question is not what needs to change but what else does WG14
think should be done along with that. And the person to seek out
an answer to that question is you, not me, as you are the one who
is advocating the change.
>>> Take the old debate about format codes in printf() calls. I keep
>>> saying that having to embed %llU etc in format strings is wrong;
>>> people keep disagreeing.
>>>
>>> Yet just a couple of days ago I was debugging something and I need to
>>> print out HWND and UINT values, when I had to pause; were they 32-bits
>>> or 64-bits? I had to take a guess and hope it worked.
>>
>> This case provides a good example. In fact you did not have to
>> make a guess. There's an easy way to print out such values
>> without knowing their types, by converting the value to a known
>> type, and using that type in the format string. When you ignore
>> such fairly obvious possibilities, it undercuts your arguments
>> about whether such features are worth adding.
>
> Like avoiding binary literals, they are all workarounds. As I said
> to Keith, you've got (1) the original declaration; (2) a cast; (3)
> the type code in the format specifier. You don't need all three!
> (1) is sufficient, yet it could be buried deeply enough that it's a
> much better idea for the language to take care of this detail.
> [snip elaboration]
I guess you missed my last sentence above. Let me repeat it for
you, with some extra emphasis:
When you ignore such fairly obvious possibilities, __it
undercuts your arguments__ about whether such features are
worth adding.
There is another statement in my previous posting that it seems
you missed also, let me repeat that too, again with some extra
emphasis:
Your opinion is never going to be worth very much until you
__learn to do a better job of listening to what the other side
has to say__.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 12:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjus0p$4eb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62526 |
On 24/05/15 16:44, Tim Rentsch wrote: > I see no reason to make any of these changes. A binary base > isn't useful because the lengths involved make it hard to > see just what the value is (and is error prone to write). Binary constants of the format 0b0110 made it into C compilers and the C++ standards because they are very useful, particularly in embedded programming where we live in a world of bits for device registers, IO ports, and so on. The format 0b0110 was implemented as a target-specific extension in the AVR (an 8-bit microcontroller) port of gcc. It was then accepted as a general extension in gcc, and copied by clang and other embedded compilers. It is quite likely that other embedded compilers used the same notation, probably before avr-gcc, but not in any of the ones I happen to have used. Someone on the C++ committee realised that this was a useful extension, with no conflicts with existing code and wide-spread implementation, so it was cheap and easy to add to the C++ standards. It works particularly well with the digit separator '. Hopefully the C committee will think likewise. (Octal literals other than 0, on the other hand, are practically non-existent in embedded code, and banned by many coding standards as confusing, hard to read, and error prone. When you work with data sizes of 8, 16 and 32 bits, a notation for 3 bit sizes is useless.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-26 09:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <556438ac.972281@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #62591 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > (Octal literals other than 0, on the other hand, are practically > non-existent in embedded code, and banned by many coding standards as > confusing, hard to read, and error prone. When you work with data sizes > of 8, 16 and 32 bits, a notation for 3 bit sizes is useless.) The only _common_ use of octal literals I know of is Unix file permissions, but there they're very common. There may, of course, be many other _un_common uses. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-26 11:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk1e67$5v9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62630 |
On 26/05/15 11:11, Richard Bos wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> (Octal literals other than 0, on the other hand, are practically >> non-existent in embedded code, and banned by many coding standards as >> confusing, hard to read, and error prone. When you work with data sizes >> of 8, 16 and 32 bits, a notation for 3 bit sizes is useless.) > > The only _common_ use of octal literals I know of is Unix file > permissions, but there they're very common. That's my impression too (plus 0, which is technically an octal literal). > > There may, of course, be many other _un_common uses. > My gut feeling is that accidental usage (i.e., hard-to-spot bugs) is more common than intentional usage of octal, other than for *nix file permissions and for zero. The only uncommon use I can think of is that some people may use it for ASCII characters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-26 22:02 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <csiuluFqs2eU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #62632 |
David Brown wrote: > On 26/05/15 11:11, Richard Bos wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>> (Octal literals other than 0, on the other hand, are practically >>> non-existent in embedded code, and banned by many coding standards as >>> confusing, hard to read, and error prone. When you work with data sizes >>> of 8, 16 and 32 bits, a notation for 3 bit sizes is useless.) >> >> The only _common_ use of octal literals I know of is Unix file >> permissions, but there they're very common. > > That's my impression too (plus 0, which is technically an octal literal). > >> >> There may, of course, be many other _un_common uses. >> > > My gut feeling is that accidental usage (i.e., hard-to-spot bugs) is > more common than intentional usage of octal, other than for *nix file > permissions and for zero. The only uncommon use I can think of is that > some people may use it for ASCII characters. This seems to be particularly common in old code! -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-26 14:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87k2vvfnhu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #62591 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: <snip> > (Octal literals other than 0, on the other hand, are practically > non-existent in embedded code, and banned by many coding standards as > confusing, hard to read, and error prone. When you work with data > sizes of 8, 16 and 32 bits, a notation for 3 bit sizes is useless.) If the data are arbitrary, I agree, but octal is useful for some kinds of data. The most common data you entered via the switches on the front panel of a PDP-11 were instructions, and it's no accident that the switches are grouped in threes as the instruction format is full of octal-significant patterns. If you are doing low-level PDP-11 programming you will use octal a lot, despite it being a 16-bit machine with 8-bit bytes. The use of octal in the PDP-11 probably comes the 36-bit PDP-10 range. It's tempting to think the octal got into C because of the octal-heavy DEC heritage, but octal constants where in B in exactly the same form (a leading 0 indicating base 8) so I think they were probably just copied into C in an environment where octal was used enough that there would be no motivation to "tidy up" B by dropping them. B was developed on Honeywell 6000 machines (re-badged GE machines) which also make heavy use of octal. Addresses are 18 bits and alphanumeric data are composed of either 6 or 9 bit bytes. The opcodes are 9 bits and some 3-bit portions denote variations. Octal was used almost exclusively. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-26 16:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk21ju$jnh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62635 |
On 26/05/15 15:59, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > <snip> >> (Octal literals other than 0, on the other hand, are practically >> non-existent in embedded code, and banned by many coding standards as >> confusing, hard to read, and error prone. When you work with data >> sizes of 8, 16 and 32 bits, a notation for 3 bit sizes is useless.) > > If the data are arbitrary, I agree, but octal is useful for some kinds > of data. The most common data you entered via the switches on the front > panel of a PDP-11 were instructions, and it's no accident that the > switches are grouped in threes as the instruction format is full of > octal-significant patterns. If you are doing low-level PDP-11 > programming you will use octal a lot, despite it being a 16-bit machine > with 8-bit bytes. The use of octal in the PDP-11 probably comes the > 36-bit PDP-10 range. I can accept that there is historical significance here, but I can't see this as a reason to want to use octal in C programming. If anyone still enters instructions to PDP-11 machines by switches, they are programming in machine code - not C. And while I have not used a PDP-11, I have used MSP430 microcontrollers extensively, which share a substantial common subset with the PDP-11 ISA. Never in all my assembly or C programming on these devices have I come across anything that would be sensibly expressed in octal. > > It's tempting to think the octal got into C because of the octal-heavy > DEC heritage, but octal constants where in B in exactly the same form (a > leading 0 indicating base 8) so I think they were probably just copied > into C in an environment where octal was used enough that there would be > no motivation to "tidy up" B by dropping them. > > B was developed on Honeywell 6000 machines (re-badged GE machines) which > also make heavy use of octal. Addresses are 18 bits and alphanumeric > data are composed of either 6 or 9 bit bytes. The opcodes are 9 bits > and some 3-bit portions denote variations. Octal was used almost > exclusively. > I think this suggests that octal and the octal notation were historical baggage from before the start of C, which happened to be convenient for *nix permission bits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-26 16:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk22rq$p2i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62637 |
On 26/05/2015 15:58, David Brown wrote: > On 26/05/15 15:59, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> B was developed on Honeywell 6000 machines (re-badged GE machines) which >> also make heavy use of octal. Addresses are 18 bits and alphanumeric >> data are composed of either 6 or 9 bit bytes. The opcodes are 9 bits >> and some 3-bit portions denote variations. Octal was used almost >> exclusively. >> > > I think this suggests that octal and the octal notation were historical > baggage from before the start of C, which happened to be convenient for > *nix permission bits. I'm not bothered whether there is octal notation or not, but the leading zero notation is just wrong. Octal constants should be more explicitly denoted. Then everyone can forget about them, and we have the freedom to write decimal numbers with leading zeros if we want without introducing subtle bugs. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 08:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk3p3q$kt7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62640 |
On 26/05/15 17:19, Bartc wrote: > On 26/05/2015 15:58, David Brown wrote: >> On 26/05/15 15:59, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>> B was developed on Honeywell 6000 machines (re-badged GE machines) which >>> also make heavy use of octal. Addresses are 18 bits and alphanumeric >>> data are composed of either 6 or 9 bit bytes. The opcodes are 9 bits >>> and some 3-bit portions denote variations. Octal was used almost >>> exclusively. >>> >> >> I think this suggests that octal and the octal notation were historical >> baggage from before the start of C, which happened to be convenient for >> *nix permission bits. > > I'm not bothered whether there is octal notation or not, but the leading > zero notation is just wrong. Agreed. > > Octal constants should be more explicitly denoted. Yes - in a way that is hard to miss or get wrong either when writing them, or when reading them. (A leading "O", for example, would be hard to get wrong in writing, but easy to misunderstand in reading.) > > Then everyone can forget about them, and we have the freedom to write > decimal numbers with leading zeros if we want without introducing subtle > bugs. > That would be nice - and a good plan for a non-C language. But since I work with C, and it's not going to lose its badly designed octal literals, I just have to hope that compilers such as gcc and clang introduce optional warnings for them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web