Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #88990 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-13 01:15 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-06-18 08:39 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 364 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-13 01:15 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 08:47 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-13 02:07 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 13:48 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 10:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 13:54 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 13:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-13 15:26 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 17:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-13 10:05 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 20:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-13 14:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 22:21 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-13 22:59 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 11:19 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 21:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 20:28 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 12:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 21:29 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 15:03 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-15 19:11 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-15 16:14 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:04 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-18 16:47 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-23 20:26 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 21:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 21:54 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 23:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-13 18:51 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-13 16:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-14 08:38 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-06-15 16:42 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 17:05 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 10:31 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 13:38 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 15:21 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 15:44 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 16:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 16:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 22:09 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-14 14:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 23:05 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-14 15:12 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 23:16 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-15 07:45 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 03:02 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-15 11:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 13:04 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 09:33 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 11:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 21:27 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 13:41 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 00:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 14:24 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 01:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 08:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 09:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 10:12 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 01:31 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 11:03 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 08:42 -0700
Kiki's killfile (Was: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-06-16 17:03 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:16 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-18 16:49 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 23:42 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:35 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 01:19 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 15:12 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 08:21 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 23:10 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 16:54 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 19:10 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 06:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 01:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 07:13 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 05:29 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 08:12 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 06:18 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 21:57 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 20:54 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 23:21 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 05:18 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:19 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:40 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 16:37 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 22:08 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 21:02 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 00:17 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 22:33 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 12:07 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 10:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 21:07 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-19 13:36 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 13:50 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 22:42 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-19 23:16 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 00:12 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 16:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 01:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-20 08:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 16:57 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-20 14:23 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 15:56 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 01:24 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 17:51 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 02:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 01:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 10:10 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 02:22 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 10:51 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 03:12 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-20 11:32 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 03:59 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 12:19 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 04:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 13:05 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 05:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 15:53 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 16:22 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 17:13 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 10:11 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 21:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 19:10 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 01:14 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-21 17:27 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-22 08:24 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 20:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-22 23:23 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-23 20:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-20 23:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 19:02 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-21 03:45 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 20:27 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-21 10:03 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-21 02:44 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-21 12:51 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-21 10:14 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-21 16:44 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-21 19:50 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-21 16:33 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-21 10:54 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-21 20:02 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-21 21:13 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-21 13:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 10:00 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 22:07 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 19:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 01:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-20 12:38 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-20 15:48 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 23:17 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-20 21:43 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:36 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-06-18 10:35 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:48 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-06-18 23:11 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 21:06 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-06-19 08:23 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 14:30 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 09:43 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 14:55 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 16:29 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 15:42 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:23 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 10:36 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 15:53 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 11:40 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 09:30 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 17:41 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 08:11 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 11:59 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 09:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 18:24 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 14:33 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 16:12 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-18 09:16 +1200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 14:16 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 06:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 07:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 18:34 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 18:06 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:06 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-17 21:49 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 15:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-18 02:18 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 19:00 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:36 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:28 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 03:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 03:31 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 20:00 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 15:34 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 10:20 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 02:13 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 11:44 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 10:47 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 03:41 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 10:52 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 13:18 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 10:20 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 10:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 12:55 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 12:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 14:11 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 09:44 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 18:38 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 11:46 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:07 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 12:23 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:43 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 13:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 21:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 14:42 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 23:28 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 15:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 16:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 01:11 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 18:01 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 18:44 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 19:42 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 13:06 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-16 15:06 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 14:40 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 09:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-06-17 20:51 +0800
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 10:32 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 11:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 12:59 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 12:34 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 13:56 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 13:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 14:33 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 08:47 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 11:51 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 20:39 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 16:36 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 21:54 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 17:05 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 16:05 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:34 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-06-17 20:43 +0800
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 06:15 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-17 15:47 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 07:51 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 11:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-17 14:57 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:37 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-06-19 00:50 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 17:30 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-19 06:35 -0500
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-19 01:29 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 17:43 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-19 02:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-18 18:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 17:14 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-19 15:17 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 14:52 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 12:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 20:55 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 16:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 16:19 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 16:48 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 01:01 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 17:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 21:55 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 10:56 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 06:36 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 16:43 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 09:13 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-18 18:49 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 11:46 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 21:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-18 13:30 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 11:17 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 01:18 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 17:53 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-17 18:20 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 21:37 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 10:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-18 07:52 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 13:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-17 22:01 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-06-18 10:02 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-17 21:10 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 06:45 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-16 15:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 10:35 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 09:07 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-06-16 15:32 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 17:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-06-16 22:26 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 23:44 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 16:56 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:03 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-18 13:43 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-16 16:35 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 20:57 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-16 21:12 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 22:31 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-16 22:32 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-16 19:59 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-17 03:11 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-17 09:11 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 12:20 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 12:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 09:24 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 18:16 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 11:15 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:09 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 11:32 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-15 12:01 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 20:15 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-15 19:15 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 03:12 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 13:03 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-15 04:22 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-15 14:20 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-15 19:33 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:00 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-06-18 20:39 +0000
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-15 09:52 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-13 14:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-13 15:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-14 09:51 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-13 23:19 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 23:46 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-13 19:04 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-06-13 20:04 -0400
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 10:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 00:23 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 11:17 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 02:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-14 08:37 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 08:56 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-14 09:14 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-06-18 11:47 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-14 10:59 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 12:54 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-14 05:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-13 22:56 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-15 10:09 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-06-15 15:09 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-16 14:39 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-06-16 15:11 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 14:28 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-16 21:25 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-16 12:40 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-16 22:00 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 21:14 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-16 14:08 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-16 22:30 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-17 13:31 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-06-17 13:28 +0200
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-06-16 21:38 -0700
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-17 10:53 +0100
Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-06-18 08:39 -0700
Page 18 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln37of3hos.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89061 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
> Every line of source is within the program, which is the first level of
> scope.
> Not all source is within a "translation unit" and you can play silly hacks
> with headers that access file scope variables. But most is. You have
> several source files per program. So that's nested, but only to one
> level.
[...]
Do you have an example of source that is not within a translation unit?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdda132f-4868-4d82-aaba-396d00dbc44b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89076 |
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 4:37:30 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> [...]
> > Every line of source is within the program, which is the first level of
> > scope.
> > Not all source is within a "translation unit" and you can play silly hacks
> > with headers that access file scope variables. But most is. You have
> > several source files per program. So that's nested, but only to one
> > level.
> [...]
>
> Do you have an example of source that is not within a translation unit?
>
/* fred.h */
sillyhack = verysilly;
/* jim.c */
void foo()
{
double sillyhack;
double verysilly = 42;
#include "fred.h"
printf("Silly hack was, heh heh heh %g\n", sillyhack);
}
/* bert.c */
void bar()
{
const char *sillyhack;
const char *verysilly = "wabbadoo";
#include "fred.h"
printf("%s\n", sillyhack);
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny46721f9.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89078 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 4:37:30 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> > Every line of source is within the program, which is the first level of
>> > scope.
>> > Not all source is within a "translation unit" and you can play silly hacks
>> > with headers that access file scope variables. But most is. You have
>> > several source files per program. So that's nested, but only to one
>> > level.
>> [...]
>>
>> Do you have an example of source that is not within a translation unit?
>>
> /* fred.h */
>
> sillyhack = verysilly;
>
>
> /* jim.c */
>
> void foo()
> {
> double sillyhack;
> double verysilly = 42;
>
> #include "fred.h"
>
> printf("Silly hack was, heh heh heh %g\n", sillyhack);
> }
>
> /* bert.c */
>
> void bar()
> {
> const char *sillyhack;
> const char *verysilly = "wabbadoo";
>
> #include "fred.h"
>
> printf("%s\n", sillyhack);
>
> }
Ok.
Do you have an example of source that is not within a translation unit?
If that was intended to be an example, what source is not within a
translation unit?
N1570 5.1.1.1:
A source file together with all the headers and source files
included via the preprocessing directive #include is known as a
*preprocessing translation unit*. After preprocessing, a
preprocessing translation unit is called a *translation unit*.
When jim.c is compiled, the contents of fred.h are part of the resulting
translation unit. When bert.c is compiled, the contents of fred.h are
again part of the resulting (different) translation unit.
--
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 | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnvb16s5a1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89080 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 4:37:30 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>> > Every line of source is within the program, which is the first level of
>>> > scope.
>>> > Not all source is within a "translation unit" and you can play silly hacks
>>> > with headers that access file scope variables. But most is. You have
>>> > several source files per program. So that's nested, but only to one
>>> > level.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Do you have an example of source that is not within a translation unit?
>>>
>> /* fred.h */
>>
>> sillyhack = verysilly;
>>
>>
>> /* jim.c */
>>
>> void foo()
>> {
>> double sillyhack;
>> double verysilly = 42;
>>
>> #include "fred.h"
>>
>> printf("Silly hack was, heh heh heh %g\n", sillyhack);
>> }
>>
>> /* bert.c */
>>
>> void bar()
>> {
>> const char *sillyhack;
>> const char *verysilly = "wabbadoo";
>>
>> #include "fred.h"
>>
>> printf("%s\n", sillyhack);
>>
>> }
>
> Ok.
>
> Do you have an example of source that is not within a translation unit?
>
> If that was intended to be an example, what source is not within a
> translation unit?
>
> N1570 5.1.1.1:
>
> A source file together with all the headers and source files
> included via the preprocessing directive #include is known as a
> *preprocessing translation unit*. After preprocessing, a
> preprocessing translation unit is called a *translation unit*.
>
> When jim.c is compiled, the contents of fred.h are part of the resulting
> translation unit. When bert.c is compiled, the contents of fred.h are
> again part of the resulting (different) translation unit.
I presume from your lack of response that you've conceded that there is
no such example. Feel free to correct me (with a valid example) if that
presumption is incorrect.
(I suppose source code that's never compiled isn't part of any
translation unit, but I don't think that's what you meant.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 10:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <njokhh$dag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89049 |
On 13/06/2016 23:40, Stefan Ram wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> Actually three (lexical) scopes is pretty much what I allow in my own
>> coding projects, just like you listed them too:
>
> I follow the rule that says that every identifier should be
> given the smallest scope possible.
Which by itself can be quite a challenging exercise given, for example,
an substantial existing function where you want to move all declarations
into the smallest enclosing block. Or maybe you need to create blocks
specifically to limit scope.
That can be fine when development of the function has finished. But if
you're in the middle of development, then you will need to keep moving
declarations about all the time as the structure of the function
changes! That's why I think it's futile.
> I then say that this is correct, but that my personal style
> would be more like:
>
> { int const oa = a; a = b; b = oa; }
If I write in non-C source:
int a,b
swap(a,b)
and auto-translate to C, then guess what, it produces something not far
off your code:
int a;
int b;
{int temp;
temp = a;
a = b;
b = temp;
}
(There are a dozen ways of doing this; I think I chose this block format
because it was convenient for code generation: I didn't need to know all
the temp variables needed in advance, and I could re-use the 'temp' name.)
That, however, is C being used as intermediate code that no one is going
to look at. For manual code I would just use:
int a,b,temp;
temp = a;
a = b;
b = temp;
Throwing in 'const' and {,} would be unnecessary obfuscation IMO.
> . I prefer »const« and a small scope for »oa«, I prefer
> the name »oa« to tell it's the »old a« or »original a«,
Except that probably no one would have guessed that until you told us! I
would have used 'olda' if I thought it was necessary to refer to the
variable name at all.
> and the single line so that the two occurences of »a« and
> »b« each are close to each other (which optically makes the
> »shift« of values visible and helps to memorize the line.)
I think vertically stacking the lines is clearer.
> The block-local variables also already prepare for the
> refactor »extract method«.
>
> Both »const« and »}« help the reader:
>
> - »const« tells him that he does not need to worry
> about changes of the value of »oa«, and
For beginners that can be confusing: if oa is constant, then how do you
manage to assign to it? Is there some magic with initialisers that
applies to constants, that you can't do with assignment?
What if you want to swap a and b, and c and d - do you now need two
temps, as a single one with 'const' can't be reused? I would suggest
that const used for this purpose and {,} as a device for limiting scope
are advanced features.
> - »}« tells him that »oa« was really only a temporary
> variable, and that he now can forget about it.
Unlike 'temp'?
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 12:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87shwgyoii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #89064 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 13/06/2016 23:40, Stefan Ram wrote:
<snip>
>> I then say that this is correct, but that my personal style
>> would be more like:
>>
>> { int const oa = a; a = b; b = oa; }
>
> If I write in non-C source:
>
> int a,b
> swap(a,b)
>
> and auto-translate to C, then guess what, it produces something not
> far off your code:
>
> int a;
> int b;
> {int temp;
> temp = a;
> a = b;
> b = temp;
> }
>
> (There are a dozen ways of doing this; I think I chose this block
> format because it was convenient for code generation: I didn't need to
> know all the temp variables needed in advance, and I could re-use the
> 'temp' name.)
>
> That, however, is C being used as intermediate code that no one is
> going to look at. For manual code I would just use:
>
> int a,b,temp;
>
> temp = a;
> a = b;
> b = temp;
I find it curious that you don't want programmers to have the same
assurances about names that you rely on when doing the translation.
Obviously this is an overly simple example, but in real program I find
having limited scopes useful, whereas you think declarations get in the
way and clutter up the code.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 05:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <088b4ecd-8f4a-4bc8-b50d-4df0b0588571@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89068 |
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 12:54:23 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > I find it curious that you don't want programmers to have the same > assurances about names that you rely on when doing the translation. > Obviously this is an overly simple example, but in real program I find > having limited scopes useful, whereas you think declarations get in the > way and clutter up the code. > A programming language is an interface between a machine and a human being. Formal scopes aren't necessary in human languages because we know from context that "Caesar" means "Julius" in one play and "Octavian" in the sequel. They are necessary for machine languages. But it's not a natural thing for a human to deal with multiple levels of constantly changing scope. Technically Octavian becomes "Caesar" at the moment Julius expires, for example, but Shakespeare keeps him as "Octavian" until the end of the play, presumably to avoid confusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 22:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <njn6m6$p5t$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #88999 |
SDCC is free software developed by volunteers¹, who implement whatever they consider interesting. That can result in odd situations, such as all the new C11 stuff being implemented, while there are still bits of older standard missing. Philipp ¹ I once did some SDCC development during work time while I was a paid researcher at Goethe-Universität Frankfurt. But then my work on SDCC was to be part of publishable research. I implemented some interesting optimizations during that time, but didn't work much on standard compliance then.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 10:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <njr2fj$h4v$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #88990 |
On 13.06.2016 01:15, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > […] > P.P.S.: At FOSDEM 2015, there was a talk on SDCC, that should still give > a good introduction today > (https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/8bit_compiler/). > There is also a blog post on what happened in SDCC since the talk up to the SDCC 3.6.0 release: http://www.embecosm.com/2016/06/14/recent-updates-to-sdcc-in-release-3-6-0/ Philipp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnfuse5cki.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #89141 |
Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> writes: > On 13.06.2016 01:15, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >> [?] >> P.P.S.: At FOSDEM 2015, there was a talk on SDCC, that should still give >> a good introduction today >> (https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/8bit_compiler/). > > There is also a blog post on what happened in SDCC since the talk up to > the SDCC 3.6.0 release: > > http://www.embecosm.com/2016/06/14/recent-updates-to-sdcc-in-release-3-6-0/ Kudos to you, sir! In addition to congratulations, let me offer encouragement for you to push ahead on getting C99-style declarations into SDCC. I know it seems like it's not very important, and to some extent I agree with that, but I believe the response from the prospective user community will make it worth the effort.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 14:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nju6me$gsi$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #89221 |
On 16.06.2016 00:09, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> writes: > >> On 13.06.2016 01:15, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >>> [?] >>> P.P.S.: At FOSDEM 2015, there was a talk on SDCC, that should still give >>> a good introduction today >>> (https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/8bit_compiler/). >> >> There is also a blog post on what happened in SDCC since the talk up to >> the SDCC 3.6.0 release: >> >> http://www.embecosm.com/2016/06/14/recent-updates-to-sdcc-in-release-3-6-0/ > > Kudos to you, sir! > > In addition to congratulations, let me offer encouragement for > you to push ahead on getting C99-style declarations into SDCC. I > know it seems like it's not very important, and to some extent I > agree with that, but I believe the response from the prospective > user community will make it worth the effort. > Personally, I think the biggest currently remaining standard-compliance issues in SDCC are: 1) C90: Assignment of struct and union. 2) C90: Returning of struct and union. 3) C99: Declarations in for loops. 4) C90: Passing of struct and union. 5) C99: Declarations after statements in blocks. Philipp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 15:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nju8ib$rkl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89260 |
On 16/06/16 14:39, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > On 16.06.2016 00:09, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> writes: >> >>> On 13.06.2016 01:15, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >>>> [?] >>>> P.P.S.: At FOSDEM 2015, there was a talk on SDCC, that should still give >>>> a good introduction today >>>> (https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/8bit_compiler/). >>> >>> There is also a blog post on what happened in SDCC since the talk up to >>> the SDCC 3.6.0 release: >>> >>> http://www.embecosm.com/2016/06/14/recent-updates-to-sdcc-in-release-3-6-0/ >> >> Kudos to you, sir! >> >> In addition to congratulations, let me offer encouragement for >> you to push ahead on getting C99-style declarations into SDCC. I >> know it seems like it's not very important, and to some extent I >> agree with that, but I believe the response from the prospective >> user community will make it worth the effort. >> > > Personally, I think the biggest currently remaining standard-compliance > issues in SDCC are: > > 1) C90: Assignment of struct and union. > 2) C90: Returning of struct and union. > 3) C99: Declarations in for loops. > 4) C90: Passing of struct and union. > 5) C99: Declarations after statements in blocks. > That looks about right, based on what I have read about SDCC. Aren't you also missing support for doubles? When programmers use compilers for such small microcontrollers, I don't think it will come as much of a surprise if you cannot pass around or assign to structs and unions. That is simply not something you would do very much in those sorts of systems - when working on an 8051 or similar devices, you know that pointer handling is going to be painfully inefficient, and you avoid it when possible. On the other hand, declarations in loops and mixing declarations and statements are zero-cost features that are convenient when writing code, and (I believe) should not be too hard to implement in the compiler. So it would be nice to see these supported, as a higher priority than the struct/union issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 14:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nju9ij$v3f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89262 |
On 16/06/2016 14:11, David Brown wrote: > On 16/06/16 14:39, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >> Personally, I think the biggest currently remaining standard-compliance >> issues in SDCC are: >> >> 1) C90: Assignment of struct and union. >> 2) C90: Returning of struct and union. >> 3) C99: Declarations in for loops. >> 4) C90: Passing of struct and union. >> 5) C99: Declarations after statements in blocks. >> > > That looks about right, based on what I have read about SDCC. Aren't > you also missing support for doubles? > > When programmers use compilers for such small microcontrollers, I don't > think it will come as much of a surprise if you cannot pass around or > assign to structs and unions. That is simply not something you would do > very much in those sorts of systems - when working on an 8051 or similar > devices, you know that pointer handling is going to be painfully > inefficient, and you avoid it when possible. > > On the other hand, declarations in loops and mixing declarations and > statements are zero-cost features that are convenient when writing code, > and (I believe) should not be too hard to implement in the compiler. So > it would be nice to see these supported, as a higher priority than the > struct/union issues. If the compiler supports 32-bit or 64-bit ints, then limited support for structs that happen to fit into 32 or 64 bits could be useful. (That is, passing, returning and assigning.) I'm thinking of an RGBA pixel struct example, defined as 4 bytes. Doubles I would give less priority too; taking another example from graphics, there single precision seems to be popular. (When I was working with Z80, one of the 'bigger' devices that seems to be supported, I used 24-bit floats. 64-bits would have made it grind to a halt.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 21:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <njuufs$dkh$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #89262 |
On 16.06.2016 15:11, David Brown wrote: > On 16/06/16 14:39, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >> >> Personally, I think the biggest currently remaining standard-compliance >> issues in SDCC are: >> >> 1) C90: Assignment of struct and union. >> 2) C90: Returning of struct and union. >> 3) C99: Declarations in for loops. >> 4) C90: Passing of struct and union. >> 5) C99: Declarations after statements in blocks. >> > > That looks about right, based on what I have read about SDCC. Aren't > you also missing support for doubles? Yes, but for now I don't consider that important enough to put on my list. > > When programmers use compilers for such small microcontrollers, I don't > think it will come as much of a surprise if you cannot pass around or > assign to structs and unions. That is simply not something you would do > very much in those sorts of systems - when working on an 8051 or similar > devices, you know that pointer handling is going to be painfully > inefficient, and you avoid it when possible. SDCC users complained about not being able to compile yacc output due to lack of struct assignment. Philipp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <464b0539-78b8-45f2-beb6-adcd012dfbb9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89328 |
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 2:25:58 PM UTC-5, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> SDCC users complained about not being able to compile yacc output due to
> lack of struct assignment.
What is the difficulty with struct assignment? You presumably know the
source and destination addresses as well as the size, so generate code
equivalent to either:
((char*)&struct1)[0] = ((char*)&struct2)[0];
((char*)&struct1)[1] = ((char*)&struct2)[1];
((char*)&struct1)[2] = ((char*)&struct2)[2];
((char*)&struct1)[3] = ((char*)&struct2)[3];
etc. if both addresses are constant and the struct isn't too big, or
char *p = struct2ptr;
((char*)&struct1)[0] = *p++;
((char*)&struct1)[1] = *p++;
((char*)&struct1)[2] = *p++;
((char*)&struct1)[3] = *p;
if only one is constant (and the struct isn't too big), or code that
loads registers with the addresses and size and calls a library routine
if neither struct has a constant address or the struct is big.
With regard to passing structures by value, have the caller pass the
address of a struct and have the callee make a copy if needed; to handle
structure returns, have the caller allocate space to receive the structure
and include the address of that structure as an extra parameter.
Is there something about your compiler design that would make those things
difficult?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <njv0ga$kj2$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #89329 |
On 16.06.2016 21:40, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > […] > to handle > structure returns, have the caller allocate space to receive the structure > and include the address of that structure as an extra parameter. We already return long long that way. > Is there something about your compiler design that would make those things > difficult? > No. But so far no one implemented it. Philipp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 21:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <njv1b6$qqq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89329 |
On 16/06/2016 20:40, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 2:25:58 PM UTC-5, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >> SDCC users complained about not being able to compile yacc output due to >> lack of struct assignment. > > What is the difficulty with struct assignment? You presumably know the > source and destination addresses as well as the size, so generate code > equivalent to either: > > ((char*)&struct1)[0] = ((char*)&struct2)[0]; > ((char*)&struct1)[1] = ((char*)&struct2)[1]; > ((char*)&struct1)[2] = ((char*)&struct2)[2]; > ((char*)&struct1)[3] = ((char*)&struct2)[3]; > > etc. if both addresses are constant and the struct isn't too big, or > > char *p = struct2ptr; > ((char*)&struct1)[0] = *p++; > ((char*)&struct1)[1] = *p++; > ((char*)&struct1)[2] = *p++; > ((char*)&struct1)[3] = *p; > > if only one is constant (and the struct isn't too big), or code that > loads registers with the addresses and size and calls a library routine > if neither struct has a constant address or the struct is big. Why not just use memcpy() then? Then there are no restrictions. (Ie. the compiler generates the equivalent.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <024d9403-cad5-4d74-aa14-c57d635ebf3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89335 |
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:14:36 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: > Why not just use memcpy() then? Then there are no restrictions. > > (Ie. the compiler generates the equivalent.) Many small embedded processors are much more adept at handling direct accesses than indirect accesses. Using internal RAM on the 8051 or 8052, the direct-direct case would require 3N bytes of code taking 2N cycles. The direct-indirect case would require 3N+1 bytes of code taking 2N cycles. The indirect-indirect case would require 4N+2 bytes of code taking 4N cycles. The code to set up and call memcpy would take 10 bytes and would take 7 cycles plus the time spent in memcpy, which would be at least 6 cycles per byte if not unrolled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 22:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <njv5q1$bq3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89339 |
On 16/06/2016 22:08, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:14:36 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: >> Why not just use memcpy() then? Then there are no restrictions. >> >> (Ie. the compiler generates the equivalent.) > > Many small embedded processors are much more adept at handling direct > accesses than indirect accesses. Using internal RAM on the 8051 or > 8052, the direct-direct case would require 3N bytes of code taking 2N > cycles. The direct-indirect case would require 3N+1 bytes of code > taking 2N cycles. The indirect-indirect case would require 4N+2 bytes > of code taking 4N cycles. The code to set up and call memcpy would > take 10 bytes and would take 7 cycles plus the time spent in memcpy, > which would be at least 6 cycles per byte if not unrolled. Presumably the compiler system supports memcpy() in its library, and you might expect some uses of memcpy (with a compile-time count for example) to be optimised. So memcpy for struct assignment can make use of the existing support for memcpy, and needs to know less about the actual target (Z80 for example has block transfer instructions that could be utilised, but this is a matter for the memcpy support). Where it might get tricky is if some data exists in special memory for which memcpy wouldn't be allowed, because you can't set up the pointers needed. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 13:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nk0n3b$4rc$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #89341 |
On 16.06.2016 23:30, BartC wrote: > On 16/06/2016 22:08, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >> On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:14:36 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: >>> Why not just use memcpy() then? Then there are no restrictions. >>> >>> (Ie. the compiler generates the equivalent.) >> >> Many small embedded processors are much more adept at handling direct >> accesses than indirect accesses. Using internal RAM on the 8051 or >> 8052, the direct-direct case would require 3N bytes of code taking 2N >> cycles. The direct-indirect case would require 3N+1 bytes of code >> taking 2N cycles. The indirect-indirect case would require 4N+2 bytes >> of code taking 4N cycles. The code to set up and call memcpy would >> take 10 bytes and would take 7 cycles plus the time spent in memcpy, >> which would be at least 6 cycles per byte if not unrolled. > > Presumably the compiler system supports memcpy() in its library, and you > might expect some uses of memcpy (with a compile-time count for example) > to be optimised. > > So memcpy for struct assignment can make use of the existing support for > memcpy, and needs to know less about the actual target (Z80 for example > has block transfer instructions that could be utilised, but this is a > matter for the memcpy support). > > Where it might get tricky is if some data exists in special memory for > which memcpy wouldn't be allowed, because you can't set up the pointers > needed. > SDCC does indeed generate code for some memcpy() calls directly for some backends. E.g. for the Z80 it will emit ldir if the result of memcpy() is not used, and the last paramter is a compile-time constant greater than 2. Philipp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web