Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90018 > unrolled thread
| Started by | G G <gdotone@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 354 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700
Re: double free Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:45 +1200
Re: double free Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-07-05 07:08 -0400
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 10:50 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 11:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 19:07 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-05 12:16 +0000
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 08:43 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-05 14:57 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-10 18:49 +0000
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:03 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 17:25 -0700
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-06 19:09 +0000
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-06 15:22 -0400
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-09 06:13 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 10:16 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 08:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:28 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:41 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-09 20:27 +0200
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 11:31 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 20:14 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 15:34 -0400
Re: double free jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-09 14:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:10 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:14 -0400
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:24 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:31 -0400
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 20:50 -0400
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 15:50 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:32 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:01 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-11 10:07 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 08:15 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 06:53 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 10:35 -0600
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 09:48 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:01 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 13:03 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:57 -0700
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-27 13:29 +0100
Re: double free Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:07 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:05 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 05:31 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 01:07 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:39 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:53 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 04:11 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 08:47 -0400
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:05 -0400
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 17:43 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 17:32 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 20:34 -0600
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-10 06:25 +0000
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-11 08:02 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 11:01 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:07 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 12:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:59 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 13:07 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:38 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:11 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 18:54 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:09 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 19:47 +0100
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-11 19:08 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:48 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:49 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 23:20 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:26 +0530
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 22:34 -0700
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-12 06:39 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 00:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 01:16 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:27 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:48 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:46 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:42 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:59 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 12:46 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:08 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 18:51 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 11:28 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 19:53 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 12:19 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-12 11:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 16:18 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:44 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:24 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:34 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:40 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:22 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 18:33 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-13 14:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 19:16 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:15 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:04 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-18 11:10 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 09:36 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 11:52 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 13:18 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 16:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:21 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:35 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:08 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 10:01 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 18:20 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 09:26 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:57 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 23:41 +0530
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 19:47 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 11:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:03 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 20:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 13:12 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 12:36 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 07:14 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 16:41 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:17 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 20:42 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:51 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 21:50 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 14:17 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:53 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 20:55 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 22:21 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 10:35 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 02:55 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 04:05 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-24 14:03 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 14:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 15:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 16:01 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 11:36 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:52 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 12:14 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 11:13 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:52 -0500
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-25 09:59 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:32 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 07:39 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 10:55 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:30 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:11 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:39 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 20:25 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:51 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 13:18 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:23 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:36 +0100
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-02 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-02 12:33 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 14:07 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 10:19 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 08:56 -0800
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 12:31 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:42 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 08:46 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:16 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:27 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:20 -0700
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-12 12:47 -0400
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:21 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 23:27 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 16:28 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 00:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 08:43 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:21 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 12:56 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:35 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:34 -0400
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-15 05:57 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 04:30 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:41 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 06:10 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 15:11 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 19:20 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:24 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:51 -0500
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 02:18 -0700
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-15 07:12 -0500
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-15 13:14 +0100
Re: double free Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-18 09:28 +0200
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 18:43 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:24 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:50 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:02 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:51 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:22 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:08 -0500
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 17:33 +0800
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 05:02 -0700
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 21:15 +0800
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:48 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 08:02 -0700
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 01:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 03:07 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:01 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 22:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 14:31 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 23:03 +0100
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-13 17:53 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 16:18 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 16:19 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 22:44 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-14 09:44 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 17:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 07:13 -0700
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:18 -0500
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:46 -0400
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:59 -0500
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-14 23:47 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:35 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 15:16 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:19 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 08:39 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:54 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 16:45 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:18 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 21:46 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 23:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 01:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 18:22 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:48 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:40 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 10:09 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 11:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:11 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 12:30 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:41 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 13:04 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-19 10:00 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:46 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:30 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:53 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:37 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 05:22 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 07:07 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 19:31 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 12:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 23:16 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 16:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 12:34 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 20:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 13:15 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 21:27 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-14 21:31 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:46 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 13:32 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 13:46 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 06:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:23 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 09:38 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:51 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:22 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:02 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 11:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:27 -0700
Re: double free Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-07-21 10:02 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-21 10:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:27 +0100
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-29 00:42 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:59 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 15:22 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 15:59 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 16:39 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 16:55 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:20 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 19:03 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:22 +0100
sizeof (was Re: double free) Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-19 14:44 -0400
Re: sizeof (was Re: double free) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:31 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 22:46 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 15:19 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 00:21 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 12:08 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:41 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 11:23 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 03:40 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 10:33 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:47 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:18 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:53 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:56 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 22:39 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:57 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:58 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:23 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:44 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 19:10 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 20:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:11 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 21:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:01 +0100
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 09:09 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:16 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-15 13:51 +0000
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-15 12:04 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-11 17:51 +0200
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:19 +0000
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 08:57 -0600
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 11:13 -0400
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-05 09:05 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:38 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:34 -0700
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-06 04:10 +0100
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 21:27 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 02:53 -0700
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 06:09 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 07:53 -0700
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-06 11:12 +0100
Re: double free Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:52 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800
Page 15 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 21:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm8sk3$1kc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90374 |
On 14/07/2016 21:15, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 14/07/2016 20:34, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> Interesting. But it doesn't work here:
>>>>
>>>> int (*array)[];
>>>> int a,i;
>>>>
>>>> a=array[0][i];
>>>
>>> So you defined a pointer to an incomplete array type. You can't
>>> use the prefix `*` dereference operator on it either.
>>
>> It seems to work (with *) on the six compilers I tried (with warnings
>> and extra warnings shown).
>>
>> Why shouldn't it work? And how /should/ I index such an array? (Ie.
>> pointer to an array of unknown length as might be used for a dynamic
>> array or passed to a function.)
>
> I was mistaken. (I rarely use incomplete array types.)
>
> Here's a complete example:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> int main(void) {
> int (*array_ptr)[];
> int arr[5] = { 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 };
> array_ptr = &arr;
>
> int elem = (*array_ptr)[0];
> printf("elem = %d\n", elem);
> }
>
> The output:
>
> elem = 10
>
> array_ptr is of type "array of int", where the array has unspecified
> bounds. It decays to "pointer to array of int". We don't need the
> bounds to be able to index it.
>
> But if we change:
> int elem = (*array_ptr)[0];
> to:
> int elem = (array_ptr[0])[0];
> it fails to compile; gcc says:
>
> c.c: In function ‘main’:
> c.c:7:9: error: invalid use of array with unspecified bounds
> int elem = (array_ptr[0])[0];
> ^~~
>
> `array_ptr[0]` is by definition equivalent to `(*array_ptr + 0)`.
> Since we don't know the size of the pointed-to object, we can't
> perform arithmetic on the pointer (not even adding 0).
>
> So `*p` and `p[0]` are not equivalent in all cases.
Yes, I think that's the point I made. For the general purpose of
indexing, you have to use:
int (*array_ptr)[0]; // or any dimension; it doesn't matter
Effectively the dynamic array is wrapped up as part of another array,
although the length of that can be zero, for the purpose of using the
[0] postfix dereference trick.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 21:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm8srq$22f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90374 |
On 14/07/16 21:15, Keith Thompson wrote: <snip> > > I was mistaken. I'll alert the media. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnmvleyjw5.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #90305 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 12/07/2016 23:21, Richard Bos wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/07/2016 21:19, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> array = malloc(soezif*sioezf*siozef); >>>>>> array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef); >>>>>> array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef); >>>>>> array = malloc(sozief*soizef*sozeif); >>>>>> array = malloc(sieozf*sizoef*sizoef); >>>>>> array = malloc(szeoif*seizof*sozeif); >>>>> >>>>> Putting aside the absurd example, I'd make two remarks: >>>>> >>>>> 1. In my editor the sizeof is bright blue so it stands out very clearly >>>>> despite your best attempts to hide it. >>>> >>>> (I hope there was only one? I was in a hurry to go out and forgot to check!) >>> >>> That just shows _how much of an imbecile_ you are playing at (!) being >>> here. >> >> Calm down. >> >> We're talking about whether to always have brackets following sizeof's >> argument. >> >> That is all... > > I agree. I completely disagree with BartC on the technical point being > discussed, but Richard Bos, you were out of line. I understand your reaction to the tone used in RB's message. I won't try to defend that. In terms of substance though I think his comments are pretty much right on the money. Just MO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 13:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nml6kh$ol7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90518 |
On 18/07/2016 17:46, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> Calm down.
>>>
>>> We're talking about whether to always have brackets following sizeof's
>>> argument.
>>>
>>> That is all...
>>
>> I agree. I completely disagree with BartC on the technical point being
>> discussed, but Richard Bos, you were out of line.
>
> I understand your reaction to the tone used in RB's message. I
> won't try to defend that.
>
> In terms of substance though I think his comments are pretty much
> right on the money. Just MO.
RB's comments, shorn of the insults and expletives, were these:
"Nobody sane will ever write code to this low a standard."
"I am _not_ required to write my code to convenience complete imbeciles."
(Well, most of the insults.) I'm not sure what the substance of these
amounts to, but if you think that is 'on the money' then OK ...
Just to reiterate, this about whether someone writes:
s*sizeof*f
or:
s*sizeof(*f)
and I'm arguing for always using the second form rather than try and
make the first more readable with arbitrary white space.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 13:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nml7fb$rfk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90574 |
On 19/07/16 13:32, BartC wrote: > On 18/07/2016 17:46, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: >> >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>>> Calm down. >>>> >>>> We're talking about whether to always have brackets following sizeof's >>>> argument. >>>> >>>> That is all... >>> >>> I agree. I completely disagree with BartC on the technical point being >>> discussed, but Richard Bos, you were out of line. >> >> I understand your reaction to the tone used in RB's message. I >> won't try to defend that. >> >> In terms of substance though I think his comments are pretty much >> right on the money. Just MO. > > RB's comments, shorn of the insults and expletives, were these: > > "Nobody sane will ever write code to this low a standard." > > "I am _not_ required to write my code to convenience complete imbeciles." > > (Well, most of the insults.) I'm not sure what the substance of these > amounts to, but if you think that is 'on the money' then OK ... > > Just to reiterate, this about whether someone writes: > > s*sizeof*f > > or: > > s*sizeof(*f) Rubbish. Utter tripe and drivel. Richard Bos's comments were *not* directed against that, but against *this*: array = malloc(seoizf*soeizf*seiozf); array = malloc(sizoef*siozef*szoief); array = malloc(siozef*szoeif*soezif); array = malloc(szeiof*szioef*sezoif); array = malloc(szeiof*soeizf*szoief); array = malloc(sezoif*szeoif*seiozf); array = malloc(szeiof*szeiof*sioezf); array = malloc(szeiof*szoief*seziof); array = malloc(szoeif*szoief*sieozf); array = malloc(soiezf*sozief*soiezf); array = malloc(sieozf*seziof*soiezf); array = malloc(sioezf*soezif*szeiof); array = malloc(seziof*sozief*seoizf); array = malloc(seozif*siozef*siezof); array = malloc(soezif*sioezf*siozef); array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef); array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef); array = malloc(sozief*soizef*sozeif); array = malloc(sieozf*sizoef*sizoef); array = malloc(szeoif*seizof*sozeif); > and I'm arguing for always using the second form rather than try and > make the first more readable with arbitrary white space. If your argument consists of the above, nobody is going to treat it seriously. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 06:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6e4d381-3932-40ac-9bd0-4c5fa73f75fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90575 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:46:43 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 19/07/16 13:32, BartC wrote: > > Rubbish. Utter tripe and drivel. Richard Bos's comments were *not* > directed against that, but against *this*: > > array = malloc(seoizf*soeizf*seiozf); > array = malloc(sizoef*siozef*szoief); > array = malloc(siozef*szoeif*soezif); > array = malloc(szeiof*szioef*sezoif); > array = malloc(szeiof*soeizf*szoief); > array = malloc(sezoif*szeoif*seiozf); > array = malloc(szeiof*szeiof*sioezf); > array = malloc(szeiof*szoief*seziof); > array = malloc(szoeif*szoief*sieozf); > array = malloc(soiezf*sozief*soiezf); > array = malloc(sieozf*seziof*soiezf); > array = malloc(sioezf*soezif*szeiof); > array = malloc(seziof*sozief*seoizf); > array = malloc(seozif*siozef*siezof); > array = malloc(soezif*sioezf*siozef); > array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef); > array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef); > array = malloc(sozief*soizef*sozeif); > array = malloc(sieozf*sizoef*sizoef); > array = malloc(szeoif*seizof*sozeif); > > > and I'm arguing for always using the second form rather than try and > > make the first more readable with arbitrary white space. > > If your argument consists of the above, nobody is going to treat it > seriously. > It makes the point too strongly. You can obfuscate C like that, but no-one would do so except as part of a competition entry. You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 09:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lninw1oauu.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90577 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
> You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a
> bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t.
I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t".
--
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 | 2016-07-19 09:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9badda1-555b-44c7-8992-bb8fa2a48da7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90597 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:23:43 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > [...] > > You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a > > bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t. > > I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t". > It makes things a little bit harder to read, especially since the identifier and keyword are likely to occur in proximity to each other. When writing novels, one bit of advice given to aspiring novelists is often to use a different initial letter for each secondary character's name. By a secondary character, I mean one who appears one or two times, not just "woman selling oranges on barrow", but not the main protagonists. Otherwise experience has shown that readers tend to mix them up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 17:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmllqc$fok$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90600 |
On 19/07/2016 17:38, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:23:43 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> [...] >>> You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a >>> bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t. >> >> I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t". >> > It makes things a little bit harder to read, especially since the identifier > and keyword are likely to occur in proximity to each other. > > When writing novels, one bit of advice given to aspiring novelists is > often to use a different initial letter for each secondary character's > name. By a secondary character, I mean one who appears one or two > times, not just "woman selling oranges on barrow", but not the main > protagonists. > Otherwise experience has shown that readers tend to mix them up. Richard Heathfield would just suggest that such people are not cut out for reading. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 18:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmlnjv$lrr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90606 |
On 19/07/16 17:51, BartC wrote: > On 19/07/2016 17:38, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:23:43 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a >>>> bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t. >>> >>> I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t". >>> >> It makes things a little bit harder to read, especially since the >> identifier >> and keyword are likely to occur in proximity to each other. >> >> When writing novels, one bit of advice given to aspiring novelists is >> often to use a different initial letter for each secondary character's >> name. By a secondary character, I mean one who appears one or two >> times, not just "woman selling oranges on barrow", but not the main >> protagonists. >> Otherwise experience has shown that readers tend to mix them up. > > Richard Heathfield would just suggest that such people are not cut out > for reading. Perhaps they're not cut out for reading computer programs, anyway. Computer programmers need to be able to get little details right. Anyone who cannot distinguish between sizeof and size_t has no justification in claiming to be a competent C programmer. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 09:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57933280.2777875@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90606 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 19/07/2016 17:38, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:23:43 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> [...] > >>> You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a > >>> bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t. > >> > >> I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t". > >> > > It makes things a little bit harder to read, especially since the identifier > > and keyword are likely to occur in proximity to each other. > > > > When writing novels, one bit of advice given to aspiring novelists is > > often to use a different initial letter for each secondary character's > > name. By a secondary character, I mean one who appears one or two > > times, not just "woman selling oranges on barrow", but not the main > > protagonists. > > Otherwise experience has shown that readers tend to mix them up. > > Richard Heathfield would just suggest that such people are not cut out > for reading. Dunno about Richard H, but Richard B. would indeed suggest that if you can't keep Papageno and Papagena apart, maybe you shouldn't be attending an opera but ought to be at the Justin Bieber concert instead. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 11:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7fcho4fe.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90600 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:23:43 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> > You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a
>> > bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t.
>>
>> I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t".
>>
> It makes things a little bit harder to read, especially since the identifier
> and keyword are likely to occur in proximity to each other.
>
> When writing novels, one bit of advice given to aspiring novelists is
> often to use a different initial letter for each secondary character's
> name. By a secondary character, I mean one who appears one or two
> times, not just "woman selling oranges on barrow", but not the main
> protagonists.
> Otherwise experience has shown that readers tend to mix them up.
That's fine for novels.
I know what "sizeof" and "size_t" mean, because I know C, and
they're fundamental concepts of the language. Their names start
with "size" because, obviously, they both have to do with sizes.
They're not names of fictional characters. (In a novel, I wouldn't
be confused if a character named Hammer were using a hammer.)
Have *you* ever confused them with each other? Do you have any
evidence that anyone with any reasonable level of experience with C
has actually confused them, or been troubled by their superficial
similarity? (I imagine that someone with no C experience might
have some initial difficulty.)
--
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 | 2016-07-19 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59a65999-79a7-40d3-8f61-e4bf62cfc756@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90621 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 7:42:37 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > Have *you* ever confused them [size_t, sizeof] with each other? > Do you have any > evidence that anyone with any reasonable level of experience with C > has actually confused them, or been troubled by their superficial > similarity? (I imagine that someone with no C experience might > have some initial difficulty.) > I'm often presented with what I call compileable gibberish. Code which is C but written in such a way that it's very hard to ascertain that it is correct, or to modify it. However to fair my objection to size_t is not that the identifier can be confused with sizeof(). My view is that if you have an integer in the program it should be an int, unless special circumstances apply, and a count of objects in memory or the number of bytes occupied by a small or medium-sized object is not such a special circumstance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31fa9feb4051b8d8117@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #90600 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > Keith Thompson wrote: > > Malcolm McLean writes: > > > You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a > > > bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t. > > > > I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t". > > > It makes things a little bit harder to read, especially since the identifier > and keyword are likely to occur in proximity to each other. > > When writing novels, one bit of advice given to aspiring novelists is > often to use a different initial letter for each secondary character's > name. By a secondary character, I mean one who appears one or two > times, not just "woman selling oranges on barrow", but not the main > protagonists. Bart and Malcolm, do you have trouble reading the paragraph above because it uses the words "novels" and "novelists", which are similar but mean different things? What about the fact that it uses "one" twice to mean completely different things?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c282f59-1916-449a-a064-066877419161@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90728 |
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 6:02:18 PM UTC+1, Philip Lantz wrote: > Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Keith Thompson wrote: > > > Malcolm McLean writes: > > > > You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a > > > > bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t. > > > > > > I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t". > > > > > It makes things a little bit harder to read, especially since the identifier > > and keyword are likely to occur in proximity to each other. > > > > When writing novels, one bit of advice given to aspiring novelists is > > often to use a different initial letter for each secondary character's > > name. By a secondary character, I mean one who appears one or two > > times, not just "woman selling oranges on barrow", but not the main > > protagonists. > > Bart and Malcolm, do you have trouble reading the paragraph above because > it uses the words "novels" and "novelists", which are similar but mean > different things? What about the fact that it uses "one" twice to mean > completely different things? > No, because the words aren't used in a special context. "Novel" means a type of fiction, and will mean that type of fiction when you've finished the paragraph. "Novelist" means the author of that type of fiction, and similarly holds that meaning independent of context. But two characters within the novel have names that are in scope only during the course of the novel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 18:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmr0lr$t10$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90728 |
On 21/07/2016 18:02, Philip Lantz wrote: > Malcolm McLean wrote: >> Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean writes: >>>> You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a >>>> bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t. >>> >>> I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t". >>> >> It makes things a little bit harder to read, especially since the identifier >> and keyword are likely to occur in proximity to each other. >> >> When writing novels, one bit of advice given to aspiring novelists is >> often to use a different initial letter for each secondary character's >> name. By a secondary character, I mean one who appears one or two >> times, not just "woman selling oranges on barrow", but not the main >> protagonists. > > Bart and Malcolm, do you have trouble reading the paragraph above because > it uses the words "novels" and "novelists", which are similar but mean > different things? What about the fact that it uses "one" twice to mean > completely different things? English can be auto-corrected by the brain to some extent. Things are expected to have proper syntactic structure. That's why the similarity of a*sizeof*b to a*size*b is a problem, and a half-assed fix of using a*sizeof *b is used by some. This doesn't work as well with proper nouns however (nor to identifiers in programs) which I think is Malcolm's point. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 00:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e00fmlF5hjgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90600 |
On 07/19/2016 09:38 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:23:43 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> [...] >>> You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a >>> bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t. >> >> I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t". >> > It makes things a little bit harder to read, especially since the identifier > and keyword are likely to occur in proximity to each other. > > When writing novels, one bit of advice given to aspiring novelists is > often to use a different initial letter for each secondary character's > name. By a secondary character, I mean one who appears one or two > times, not just "woman selling oranges on barrow", but not the main > protagonists. > Otherwise experience has shown that readers tend to mix them up. > As if the rest of us spend our lives reading C syntax. You study C when you have to, and if you didn't come armed with K&R2, you didn't show up with the book you needed. I find interesting that the difference between these keywords is best shown in my deutsche Aufgabe, where the keywords are reversed on the text that explains them. Hoch empfohlen. -- Cal Dershowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 08:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <579331cd.2599046@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90597 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > [...] > > You do however often have identifiers with names which are visually a > > bit similar to sizeof. Eg size_t. > > I don't think anyone would confuse "sizeof" and "size_t". I'm quite sure that some people who _want_ to confuse sizeof and size_t are planning to do so at this very moment. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 15:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmld2c$fma$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90575 |
On 19/07/2016 13:46, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 19/07/16 13:32, BartC wrote: >> Just to reiterate, this about whether someone writes: >> >> s*sizeof*f >> >> or: >> >> s*sizeof(*f) > > Rubbish. Utter tripe and drivel. Richard Bos's comments were *not* > directed against that, but against *this*: > array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef); > array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef); >> and I'm arguing for always using the second form rather than try and >> make the first more readable with arbitrary white space. > > If your argument consists of the above, nobody is going to treat it > seriously. It's one point showing that sizeof followed by "*" without an intervening bracket is difficult to distinguish from a multiply. Unless you're using special tools that highlight the 'sizeof' or can distinguish one kind of "*" from another. But then, that is also /doing something about the problem/. I don't believe however in using smart editors and other such tools to get around deficiencies in a language or to excuse poor habits. I'm suggesting instead doing something about it by using parentheses always (and I don't think using extra white space is as good). (I have a suspicion that if the designer of this feature had insisted that sizeof was always followed by parentheses, perhaps for the same reasons I've mentioned, then he or she would not be called an imbecile. Or told to f*ck off or whatever was said. Funny, that. That would fall into the same pattern of quirky or badly-thought-out features which, simply by being in place for a long time, are considered 'sensible' because they are part of the language. While anyone arguing against them must clearly be an idiot.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 15:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmlf94$mpt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90579 |
On 19/07/16 15:22, BartC wrote: > On 19/07/2016 13:46, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 19/07/16 13:32, BartC wrote: > >>> Just to reiterate, this about whether someone writes: >>> >>> s*sizeof*f >>> >>> or: >>> >>> s*sizeof(*f) >> >> Rubbish. Utter tripe and drivel. Richard Bos's comments were *not* >> directed against that, but against *this*: > >> array = malloc(szeiof*sizeof*siozef); >> array = malloc(szeoif*soiezf*sizoef); > >>> and I'm arguing for always using the second form rather than try and >>> make the first more readable with arbitrary white space. >> >> If your argument consists of the above, nobody is going to treat it >> seriously. > > It's one point showing that sizeof followed by "*" without an > intervening bracket is difficult to distinguish from a multiply. Except that it isn't even remotely difficult. Any C programmer worth his or her salt can parse: T *new = malloc(n * sizeof *new); without any difficulty whatsoever. If you can't, then that's fine, but maybe C isn't the language for you. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web