Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29282 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-04 10:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-04-29 22:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 374 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Epic Fail Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-04 10:26 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-04 12:42 -0500
Re: Epic Fail forthisit@gmail.com - 2014-04-04 11:09 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-04 22:09 +0100
Re: Epic Fail "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-04 21:44 -1000
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-05 09:42 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-05 10:47 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-05 15:25 -0400
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-07 17:29 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 12:35 -0700
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-08 15:54 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-08 12:43 -0500
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-09 16:16 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-09 13:00 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-09 21:08 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-09 15:17 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-10 00:17 +0200
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-09 22:42 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-04-10 00:06 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-10 16:00 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-10 22:35 +0200
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-10 17:51 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-04-10 21:44 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-11 23:10 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-12 06:18 -0400
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-12 06:23 -0400
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-12 10:52 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2014-04-12 20:14 +0200
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-12 19:21 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-13 12:25 -0500
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-13 20:33 -0400
Re: Epic Fail stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-12 16:12 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-12 09:48 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-04-12 10:23 -0700
Re: Epic Fail stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-12 19:51 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-12 13:00 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-12 10:29 -0700
Re: Epic Fail stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-12 19:56 +0000
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-13 00:25 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-13 10:50 +0100
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-13 16:53 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2014-04-14 02:32 +0200
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-13 17:59 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-14 02:00 +0100
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-13 18:30 -0700
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-13 14:21 +0000
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-13 21:12 -0700
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-23 12:49 +0000
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-28 21:02 -0700
Automatic scoping of locals (was: Epic Fail) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-29 14:49 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-10 03:04 -0500
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-11 17:23 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-11 21:42 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Spam@ControlQ.com - 2014-04-11 16:13 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-11 22:15 +0200
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-13 16:10 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-13 18:42 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-13 23:44 +0200
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-13 20:33 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-14 04:05 -0500
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-14 09:57 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-14 11:56 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-14 14:53 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-14 07:26 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-14 21:21 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-15 04:07 -0500
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-14 09:55 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-04-14 22:04 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-15 04:10 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-04-15 02:40 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-15 06:41 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-04-15 06:20 -0700
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-15 12:21 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-04-15 06:30 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-15 20:04 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-04-15 23:50 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-15 21:31 -1000
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-16 05:55 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-16 14:50 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-04-16 06:06 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-19 17:44 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-20 11:35 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-16 00:19 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-16 05:29 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-16 22:45 -0400
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-14 09:49 +0000
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-23 13:07 +0000
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-23 20:16 -0400
Re: Epic Fail "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-23 14:41 -1000
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-24 17:10 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Spam@ControlQ.com - 2014-04-24 15:14 -0400
@ and optimization (was: Epic Fail) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 08:40 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-25 06:13 -0500
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 15:26 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 09:03 -0700
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 17:45 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-25 11:15 -0500
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 17:22 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 04:38 -0500
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-26 11:38 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-26 14:35 +0200
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 09:59 -0500
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 10:14 -0500
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-26 15:30 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 12:05 -0500
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-26 17:27 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 12:39 -0500
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-26 18:07 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-27 03:24 -0500
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-27 13:00 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-27 11:18 -0500
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-28 15:12 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-29 03:52 -0500
Re: @ and optimization Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 03:09 -0700
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-29 09:24 -0500
Re: @ and optimization "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-29 08:36 -1000
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-29 14:38 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-29 10:21 -0500
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-29 15:41 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-29 12:26 -0500
Re: @ and optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-29 20:17 +0200
Re: @ and optimization stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-29 19:21 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-29 23:20 +0200
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-30 03:02 -0500
Re: @ and optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-26 20:55 +0200
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-27 03:28 -0500
Re: @ and optimization albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-27 13:31 +0000
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-28 15:27 +0000
Re: @ and optimization albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-27 13:23 +0000
Re: @ and optimization hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-28 21:32 -0700
Re: @ and optimization "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-26 08:50 -0400
Re: @ and optimization "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-26 22:52 +0100
Re: @ and optimization "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-26 20:33 -0400
Re: @ and optimization "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-27 11:53 +0100
Re: @ and optimization "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-28 01:05 -0400
Re: @ and optimization Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-25 21:34 +0100
Re: @ and optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 13:37 -0700
Re: @ and optimization Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-25 22:03 +0100
Re: @ and optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-26 15:38 +0000
Re: @ and optimization Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 17:24 +0100
Re: @ and optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 04:48 -0500
Re: @ and optimization Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 11:09 +0100
Re: @ and optimization (was: Epic Fail) hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-28 21:24 -0700
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-24 19:17 +0000
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 08:27 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-25 23:44 +0200
Re: Epic Fail stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-26 14:37 +0000
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-13 15:04 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 09:58 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 10:16 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 05:06 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 11:16 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-26 03:43 -0700
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-26 14:24 +0000
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-26 23:58 -0400
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-27 12:46 +0000
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-28 00:41 -0400
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-28 21:54 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 17:17 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 10:08 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-26 13:44 +0200
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-26 09:11 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 10:12 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 17:00 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 12:08 -0500
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-26 23:41 -0400
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-26 17:06 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 12:45 -0500
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-26 17:52 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-26 21:52 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-27 03:31 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-27 13:48 +0200
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-27 12:02 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 22:19 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-14 10:28 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-14 22:02 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-14 18:57 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-15 05:05 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-14 22:53 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-13 12:34 -0500
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-14 13:22 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-14 10:08 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Spam@ControlQ.com - 2014-04-14 11:59 -0400
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-17 16:56 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Spam@ControlQ.com - 2014-04-17 15:16 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-17 23:59 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-18 04:38 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-18 09:17 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-18 11:44 -0500
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-18 17:06 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-18 11:41 -0500
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-18 16:55 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-18 19:20 +0200
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-20 14:52 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-18 12:21 -0500
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-20 14:36 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-20 08:17 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-20 11:35 -0500
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-21 10:51 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-21 19:54 +0200
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-22 17:40 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-22 20:47 +0200
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-19 11:34 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-19 16:05 -0500
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-20 12:38 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-20 11:42 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-20 12:11 -0500
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-20 17:23 +0000
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-20 11:58 -0700
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-21 10:21 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-22 04:58 -0500
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-22 17:05 +0000
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-20 17:12 +0000
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-20 19:47 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-22 05:03 -0500
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-22 11:51 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-22 08:28 -0500
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-22 15:02 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-22 13:23 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2014-04-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Todd Hughes <noemail@dontemailme.org> - 2014-04-10 11:24 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-10 06:55 -0500
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-10 15:50 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-10 11:02 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-10 22:31 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-11 03:55 -0500
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-10 19:08 -0400
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-10 19:03 -0400
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-11 17:45 +0100
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-11 17:16 +0000
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-11 18:59 +0100
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-11 19:11 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-11 12:05 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-11 22:03 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-11 20:18 +0200
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-11 21:44 -0400
Re: Epic Fail visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-04-11 14:00 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2014-04-12 01:04 -0700
Re: Epic Fail the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-04-09 16:12 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-04 23:20 +0200
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-07 17:40 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-08 00:52 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 16:13 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-04-08 06:37 +0300
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-09 01:12 +0200
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-08 10:16 +0000
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-04 17:41 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-05 02:49 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 17:46 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-04 21:59 -1000
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-05 08:51 +0000
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-05 14:45 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-05 16:01 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-05 19:22 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-06 10:46 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-06 13:20 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-06 19:58 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-06 12:28 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-06 16:40 -0400
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-06 22:04 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-06 23:25 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-06 23:48 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-06 15:17 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 00:08 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-06 15:34 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 00:29 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-06 16:01 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 00:58 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-06 16:29 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 01:33 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 01:58 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-06 19:33 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 04:40 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 04:25 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-06 20:19 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 11:23 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-07 03:24 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 11:18 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-07 05:20 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 14:49 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-07 08:43 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-07 20:27 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-07 02:57 -0500
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-07 10:00 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-07 16:10 +0200
Re: Epic Fail m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-04-07 07:54 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-07 22:59 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-07 15:07 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-07 15:13 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-08 00:40 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-07 01:02 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-08 10:49 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-08 19:01 +0100
Re: Epic Fail "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-08 08:13 -1000
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-08 20:34 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-08 12:04 -0700
[OT] Haskell code Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-09 00:42 +0200
Re: [OT] Haskell code Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-08 18:14 -0700
Re: [OT] Haskell code Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-08 18:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Haskell code Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-09 03:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Haskell code Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-08 18:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Haskell code Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-09 03:17 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-06 16:48 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-06 15:30 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-04-07 11:26 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-07 05:21 -0500
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-07 17:54 +0100
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-07 12:14 -0500
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-07 16:49 +0000
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-07 09:37 +0000
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-06 08:43 -0700
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-07 12:53 +0000
Re: Epic Fail mhx@iae.nl - 2014-04-06 00:09 -0700
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-06 13:12 +0000
Re: Epic Fail mhx@iae.nl - 2014-04-06 07:55 -0700
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-07 10:18 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-06 08:21 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-06 08:30 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-06 22:12 +0200
Re: Epic Fail "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-06 12:08 -1000
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-06 16:44 -0700
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-06 22:03 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-04-07 01:29 -0700
locals in nested definitions (was: Epic Fail) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-07 16:57 +0000
Re: Epic Fail mhx@iae.nl - 2014-04-07 11:48 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-07 22:54 +0200
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-08 00:04 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-07 14:12 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-07 21:23 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-07 19:33 -1000
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-07 23:52 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-08 09:07 +0100
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-08 12:35 +0100
Re: Epic Fail anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-08 16:21 +0000
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-08 16:33 -0400
Re: Epic Fail "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-08 23:41 +0100
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-08 22:47 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-08 10:43 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-08 10:12 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-08 08:58 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-08 08:02 -1000
Re: Epic Fail hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-08 23:07 -0700
Re: Epic Fail albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-08 10:21 +0000
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-08 15:32 +0200
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-08 17:46 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-09 01:06 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-08 18:06 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-09 02:56 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-08 18:17 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-09 03:24 +0200
Re: Epic Fail "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-09 02:22 -0400
Re: Epic Fail Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-04-09 17:07 +0300
Re: Epic Fail the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-04-09 03:48 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 07:17 +0300
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-07 22:52 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 03:53 -0700
Re: Epic Fail the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-04-08 16:24 -0700
Re: Epic Fail the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-04-08 16:45 -0700
Re: Epic Fail kerdezixe@gmail.com - 2014-04-29 11:15 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 11:21 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-29 20:46 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 12:27 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-29 23:13 +0200
Re: Epic Fail Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-04-30 00:04 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-30 00:54 -0700
Re: Epic Fail Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-30 03:08 -0500
Re: Epic Fail Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-04-30 02:30 -0700
Re: Epic Fail AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-04-29 20:48 +0200
Re: Epic Fail stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-29 19:09 +0000
Re: Epic Fail "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-29 09:23 -1000
Re: Epic Fail Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 12:43 -0700
Re: Epic Fail "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-29 11:23 -1000
Re: Epic Fail Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 22:52 -0700
Page 9 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 19 Next page →
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 13:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ljg67f$8sh$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #29854 |
Andrew Haley wrote: > Actually, that's not really my position. I am arguing for a > literalist interpretation of language semantics. That is to say, > believe that the specification means what it says: when it says > something is undefined, it really is undefined. And if you invoke > undefined behaviour and something bad happens, it really is your > fault. However, that's not the way standards are created. There's almost always a reason why something is defined "undefined", and it's usually because there are different systems where things differ. The C standard is worded in the direction as you argue, the Forth standard e.g. isn't. We have this notation of an environmental dependency (or an environmental restriction, when you can't implement optional parts of the standard), which make clear that some behavior is well-defined in a particular environment. > I have no objection to tightening up areas of undefined behaviour, and > in many cases it would improve programming languages to do so, even if > it meant fewer optimization opportunities. From what I can see this > view is becoming more widespread. Hopefully. But there were voices a long time ago that had that view, and one of them was Richard Stallman. The section is rather small, and uses GCC as example: https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Non_002dGNU-Standards.html#Non_002dGNU-Standards The key sentence for you and your fellow GCC maintainers is: "In developing a GNU program, you should implement an outside standard’s specifications when that makes the GNU system better overall in an objective sense." "outside standard's specification" obviously included reasonable extensions to the standard. And the --pedantic switch is there "not because there is any reason to actually use it." There's also a hint what to do with behavior you had in the past, but wasn't actually blessed standard C behavior: "In particular, don’t reject a new feature, or remove an old one, merely because a standard says it is “forbidden” or “deprecated”." I think that short section clearly explains why Stallman's GCC was working for us, and why current GCC is causing problems. This sort of thinking is not new. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 09:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xexdkpek6zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #29854 |
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 06:06:41 -0400, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > I am arguing for a literalist interpretation of language semantics. > That is to say, believe that the specification means what it says: > when it says something is undefined, it really is undefined. Oh, c'mon! You know full well that's *NOT* remotely how C works. Stop being inciteful and spreading B.S. or F.U.D. C has a historical model of implementation that started with C 1974 and K&R C. All C compilers support this set of undocumented and historical behaviors. Then, C was standardized with ANSI C. That captured some of the required behaviors, but not enough. Some standard behavior couldn't be standardized due to different computing architectures. C was then tweaked slightly to comply with the major changes of the ANSI C standard, but the stuff that was already working for the existing C compilers wasn't changed to match the specifications. C was then tweaked again for the important fixes in the various TCs. A handful of C compilers were tweaked again when ISO C99 came about, but not all. If you don't implement those historical and undocumented behaviors of K&R C and C 1974, C code will not work. If you don't implement the requirements of the C Rationale, C won't work correctly. If you rely exclusively on the current C specifications, you're going to implement a botched up version of C. You need to understand the C Rationale and the historic behaviors of C. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 10:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <HLCdnR-0JvJ4UcbOnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #29862 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 06:06:41 -0400, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> I am arguing for a literalist interpretation of language semantics. >> That is to say, believe that the specification means what it says: >> when it says something is undefined, it really is undefined. > > Oh, c'mon! You know full well that's *NOT* remotely how C works. > Stop being inciteful and spreading B.S. or F.U.D. I know that is exactly how C works. So there. > C has a historical model of implementation that started with C 1974 > and K&R C. All C compilers support this set of undocumented and > historical behaviors. Then, C was standardized with ANSI C. That > captured some of the required behaviors, but not enough. Some > standard behavior couldn't be standardized due to different > computing architectures. C was then tweaked slightly to comply with > the major changes of the ANSI C standard, but the stuff that was > already working for the existing C compilers wasn't changed to match > the specifications. C was then tweaked again for the important > fixes in the various TCs. A handful of C compilers were tweaked > again when ISO C99 came about, but not all. If you don't implement > those historical and undocumented behaviors of K&R C and C 1974, C > code will not work. If you don't implement the requirements of the > C Rationale, C won't work correctly. If you rely exclusively on the > current C specifications, you're going to implement a botched up > version of C. You need to understand the C Rationale and the > historic behaviors of C. Where have you been for the last decade? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4jlnl91n4lntq33u344dghllanpn548iv4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #29868 |
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:12:37 -0500, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote: > >> C has a historical model of implementation that started with C 1974 >> and K&R C. All C compilers support this set of undocumented and >> historical behaviors. Then, C was standardized with ANSI C. That >> captured some of the required behaviors, but not enough. Some >> standard behavior couldn't be standardized due to different >> computing architectures. C was then tweaked slightly to comply with >> the major changes of the ANSI C standard, but the stuff that was >> already working for the existing C compilers wasn't changed to match >> the specifications. C was then tweaked again for the important >> fixes in the various TCs. A handful of C compilers were tweaked >> again when ISO C99 came about, but not all. If you don't implement >> those historical and undocumented behaviors of K&R C and C 1974, C >> code will not work. If you don't implement the requirements of the >> C Rationale, C won't work correctly. If you rely exclusively on the >> current C specifications, you're going to implement a botched up >> version of C. You need to understand the C Rationale and the >> historic behaviors of C. > >Where have you been for the last decade? > That's precisely the point that is being made --- it is the new C under the new committee that has changed its direction --- we've all been exactly where we were with the opinion that as C was designed by its creators to be a portable assembler and was living a vigorous and productive life as a portable assembler that it would be preserved as a portable assembler. These new so-called improvements have all happened roughly over the last decade. Assad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 12:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jsydnVFAf6hnesbOnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #29873 |
Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:12:37 -0500, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >>Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote: >> >>> C has a historical model of implementation that started with C 1974 >>> and K&R C. All C compilers support this set of undocumented and >>> historical behaviors. Then, C was standardized with ANSI C. That >>> captured some of the required behaviors, but not enough. Some >>> standard behavior couldn't be standardized due to different >>> computing architectures. C was then tweaked slightly to comply with >>> the major changes of the ANSI C standard, but the stuff that was >>> already working for the existing C compilers wasn't changed to match >>> the specifications. C was then tweaked again for the important >>> fixes in the various TCs. A handful of C compilers were tweaked >>> again when ISO C99 came about, but not all. If you don't implement >>> those historical and undocumented behaviors of K&R C and C 1974, C >>> code will not work. If you don't implement the requirements of the >>> C Rationale, C won't work correctly. If you rely exclusively on the >>> current C specifications, you're going to implement a botched up >>> version of C. You need to understand the C Rationale and the >>> historic behaviors of C. >> >>Where have you been for the last decade? > > That's precisely the point that is being made --- it is the new C > under the new committee that has changed its direction --- we've all > been exactly where we were with the opinion that as C was designed by > its creators to be a portable assembler and was living a vigorous and > productive life as a portable assembler that it would be preserved as > a portable assembler. Indeed so, and that is a perfectly reasonable position to take. > These new so-called improvements have all happened roughly over the > last decade. The last couple of decades, I think. But yes. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 23:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xeyhusje6zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #29868 |
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:12:37 -0400, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote: >> C has a historical model of implementation that started with C >> 1974 and K&R C. [...] > > Where have you been for the last decade? > Mostly? In comp.lang.forth ... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 17:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Apr26.190624@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #29616 |
Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> writes:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:10:30 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
>(Anton Ertl) wrote:
>>
>>Anyway, these are not alternatives. The LLVM maintainers are under
>>the same evil spell as the gcc maintainers
>><http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html>.
>>The Intel compiler is proprietary.
>>
>
>Thanks for the interesting article reference.
>
>Is the below a fair representation of your and Bernd's point of view?
>
>(A1) we want some of the optimisations that optimising compilers
>produce
>
>(A2) but we don't want them to do so at the expense of taking too
>many liberties with the code
>
>(A3) we'd rather agree that if we want to improve code beyond what a
>non-libertine compiler could legitimately do, then we must take on
>that further improvement ourselves using profilers and targeted
>improvements ourselves.
Yes, although A1 and A2 are not very precise. More precisely, I want
the optimizations that the Stallman-maintained gcc-2.x did.
>And would this be a reasonable representation of a ' modern compiler
>maintainer's point of view?
...
>(B2) We're actually not all that interested in C anyway --- what we
>would really like is to be able to take *any* language, transform it
>to a machine independent intermediate language, and then write out
>'optimised' code to any given target machine. So what we're after is
>a universal middle-language, with reasonably sound translators from C,
>Fortran, C++, Objective-C, even Java, maybe even Python, into it, and
>then reasonably sound translators from this middle language into any
>of a vast number of machine languages.
I would not expect that to have much to do with it. The "undefined
behaviour" in standard C is specific to this standard (with maybe some
crossover with C++). I certainly would not use an IR full of
"undefined behaviour" as a common IR, but would deal with "undefined
behaviour" at a higher level, but then I would not do the things with
"undefined behavuour" that the GCC maintainers are doing.
However, there is evidence for your idea: 1) Andrew Haley wrote that
-fwrapv came from doing Java. 2) Some older discussions I read
mentioned C++ as justification for miscompiling C; I actually got the
idea that this whole attitude problem is coming from the C++ side.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 12:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <LpSdnV-T4oEjbcbOnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #29878 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > > Yes, although A1 and A2 are not very precise. More precisely, I want > the optimizations that the Stallman-maintained gcc-2.x did. Do you have any justification for the opinion that Stallman was mainaining gcc 2.x? I was around from the mid-90s onwards, and I don't remember that. I think that Richard Kenner was the maintainer by then. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Apr26.195209@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #29881 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, although A1 and A2 are not very precise. More precisely, I want
>> the optimizations that the Stallman-maintained gcc-2.x did.
>
>Do you have any justification for the opinion that Stallman was
>mainaining gcc 2.x?
Sure, I have an email from him for a bug report I wrote.
>I was around from the mid-90s onwards, and I
>don't remember that. I think that Richard Kenner was the maintainer
>by then.
Richard Kenner was the maintainer of 2.8.x, maybe also 2.7.x, but before
that it was Richard Stallman.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 21:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ljh2p3$vbg$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #29882 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Richard Kenner was the maintainer of 2.8.x, maybe also 2.7.x, but before > that it was Richard Stallman. Kenner was maintainer for GCC 2.5 to GCC 2.8, and then, because the "everything has to go through the maintainer" bottleneck became a too obvious problem, the EGCS experiment started (stalling GCC for about 2 years during the transition). http://linuxfinances.info/info/c.html IMHO the shoes of RMS were simply too big for Kenner. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 03:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_5adnWx9XLHwXcHOnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #29886 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > Anton Ertl wrote: >> Richard Kenner was the maintainer of 2.8.x, maybe also 2.7.x, but before >> that it was Richard Stallman. > > Kenner was maintainer for GCC 2.5 to GCC 2.8, and then, because the > "everything has to go through the maintainer" bottleneck became a too > obvious problem, the EGCS experiment started (stalling GCC for about 2 years > during the transition). Mmm, but EGCS wasn't stalled, and EGCS became GCC. > http://linuxfinances.info/info/c.html > > IMHO the shoes of RMS were simply too big for Kenner. Well, we hit the "Kenner doesn't scale" problem, but I think we would have hit the same problem with Stallman too. No-one can scale to so many active maintainers. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 13:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ljiqq3$rrd$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #29907 |
Andrew Haley wrote: > Well, we hit the "Kenner doesn't scale" problem, but I think we would > have hit the same problem with Stallman too. No-one can scale to so > many active maintainers. Linus apparently has solved that scaling problem. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 12:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Apr27.140210@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #29886 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> Richard Kenner was the maintainer of 2.8.x, maybe also 2.7.x, but before
>> that it was Richard Stallman.
>
>Kenner was maintainer for GCC 2.5 to GCC 2.8,
It says so, too, on one of Kenner's own pages:
<http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Richard-Kenner/10200391>.
However, I am pretty sure that the announcement that said that
Stallman is passing the staff to Kenner only came after 2.6.3. And
the effects were quite noticable: instead of the stream of frequent
releases that gcc had seen up to 2.6.3, releases were much rarer in
the 2.7.x series: From 2.0 to 2.6.3 it took less than three years,
from 2.6.3 to 2.8.0 it took more than three years (for dates, see
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/releases.html>).
Apparently other people working on gcc were unhappy with this
situation and started egcs, from which came gcc-2.95.
Anyway, my guess is that Stallman still did a lot of work up to 2.6.x,
and then bowed out, and that slowed down development quite a bit.
>IMHO the shoes of RMS were simply too big for Kenner.
Sure, RMS is (or was) a very good and fast programmer, and he was less
averse to complexity than is good for a project that is going to be
maintained by mere mortals, so picking up such a project would have
been a challenge for anyone, including someone of RMS's own calibre,
as maintaining someone else's code is harder than maintaining your
own.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 22:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tg8ol9lcc2bnn66hp45r5338tio1r8olrm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #29878 |
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:06:24 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> writes: >>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:10:30 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at >>(Anton Ertl) wrote: >>> >>>Anyway, these are not alternatives. The LLVM maintainers are under >>>the same evil spell as the gcc maintainers >>><http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html>. >>>The Intel compiler is proprietary. >>> >> >>Thanks for the interesting article reference. >> >>Is the below a fair representation of your and Bernd's point of view? >> >>(A1) we want some of the optimisations that optimising compilers >>produce >> >>(A2) but we don't want them to do so at the expense of taking too >>many liberties with the code >> >>(A3) we'd rather agree that if we want to improve code beyond what a >>non-libertine compiler could legitimately do, then we must take on >>that further improvement ourselves using profilers and targeted >>improvements ourselves. > >Yes, although A1 and A2 are not very precise. More precisely, I want >the optimizations that the Stallman-maintained gcc-2.x did. > >>And would this be a reasonable representation of a ' modern compiler >>maintainer's point of view? >... >>(B2) We're actually not all that interested in C anyway --- what we >>would really like is to be able to take *any* language, transform it >>to a machine independent intermediate language, and then write out >>'optimised' code to any given target machine. So what we're after is >>a universal middle-language, with reasonably sound translators from C, >>Fortran, C++, Objective-C, even Java, maybe even Python, into it, and >>then reasonably sound translators from this middle language into any >>of a vast number of machine languages. > >I would not expect that to have much to do with it. The "undefined >behaviour" in standard C is specific to this standard (with maybe some >crossover with C++). I certainly would not use an IR full of >"undefined behaviour" as a common IR, but would deal with "undefined >behaviour" at a higher level, but then I would not do the things with >"undefined behavuour" that the GCC maintainers are doing. > >However, there is evidence for your idea: 1) Andrew Haley wrote that >-fwrapv came from doing Java. 2) Some older discussions I read >mentioned C++ as justification for miscompiling C; I actually got the >idea that this whole attitude problem is coming from the C++ side. That is my understanding as well. And the problem has gotten more acute in the past 3-4 years. Consider: (from Wikipedia): In May 2010, the GCC steering committee decided to allow use of a C++ compiler to compile GCC.[24] The compiler was intended to be written in C plus a subset of features from C++. In particular, this was decided so that GCC's developers could use the destructors and generics features of C++.[25] In August 2012, the GCC steering committee announced that GCC now uses C++ as its implementation language.[26] This means that to build GCC from sources, a C++ compiler is required that understands C++ 2003. (end quote) So Bjarne Stroustrup seems, at long last, to have got his wish (see the video interview of him which I posted earlier today)... - Assad > >- anton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-14 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xd2gjizvv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #29613 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > As for tcc, gforth needs register allocation and copy propagation, and > tcc does not do that. What's worse, Fabrice Bellard is no longer > working on it, and while there seem to be people working on it, the > future prospects are unclear. You might have a look at the C compiler that comes with Go (golang.org). Its C dialect is approximately C89, and it is extremely fast. I don't know what optimizations it has, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-14 22:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lihesb$g58$4@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #29643 |
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:28:52 -0700 Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > > As for tcc, gforth needs register allocation and copy propagation, > > and tcc does not do that. What's worse, Fabrice Bellard is no > > longer working on it, and while there seem to be people working on > > it, the future prospects are unclear. > > You might have a look at the C compiler that comes with Go > (golang.org). Its C dialect is approximately C89, and it is extremely > fast. I don't know what optimizations it has, though. How it can be used as standalone compiler? -- Click OK to continue...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-14 18:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7x4n1vuzfw.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #29648 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: >> C compiler that comes with Go (golang.org). > How it can be used as standalone compiler? http://golang.org/cmd/gc/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-15 05:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lii7mb$hub$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #29652 |
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:57:39 -0700
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:
> >> C compiler that comes with Go (golang.org).
> > How it can be used as standalone compiler?
>
> http://golang.org/cmd/gc/
Well, I wouldn't call this standard C ;)
bmaxa@maxa:~/examples$ cat gohello.c
#include "runtime.h"
void main·init(void) // equivalent to init() function in Go
{
runtime·printf("init\n");
}
// this is the main() function; no argc/argv, and return type is void
void main·main(void)
{
runtime·printf("main\n");
}
bmaxa@maxa:~/examples$ go tool 6c -I /media/Linux/go/src/pkg/runtime gohello.c
bmaxa@maxa:~/examples$ go tool 6l gohello.6
bmaxa@maxa:~/examples$ ./6.out
init
main
--
Click OK to continue...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-14 22:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7x38hfw32w.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #29654 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: > Well, I wouldn't call this standard C ;)... > void main·init(void) // equivalent to init() function in Go I suspect that is for C-Go interoperability, and I have the impression that the C compiler can compile regular C, but I haven't tried using it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-13 12:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BIednWotufwUV9fOnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #29530 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Come on, every year we add another workaround against GCC >>> pessimizations that had been added in the newest GCC versions (and >>> when they go away, the result is still worse than before). Code >>> that was fine and fast before. This is a straw man: If GCC really >>> would generate faster code, your argument would have some substance, >>> but in fact, it gets slower and slower, and more difficult to get >>> GCC to compile optimal code. >> >>I don't believe that this is generally true: AIUI code quality is >>measured regularly and is not decreasing. > > Looking at Figure 7 and 8 of > > http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef09/papers/ertl.pdf > > you can see that Gforth 0.6.2 is much slower on newer gccs than on > older ones. Well, yes, but that's GForth, which as discussed is written neither in Standard C or GNU C. > For 0.7.0 we worked around the reasons for these > slowdowns (but did not always succeed), so it does ok on most newer > gcc versions (but not all), but that's not GCC's merit. And yet, even > for 0.7.0 gcc-2.95 is the fastest gcc version on the IA-32 Xeon 5450. > > How do you measure code quality? There's a bunch of industry-standard benchmarks. AFAIK SPECint is the best general-purpose one. > Anyway, the reason why we used gcc is because it was a good way to > combine our goals of portability and efficiency, and to avoid having > to get involved with native-code compilers and their retargeting > issues. If I get involved with writing a native-code compilers, I > will do one for Forth; this is probably much less work than cleaning > up gcc, and it will result in a faster Forth system. Probably. And it might even make GForth into what it should have been in the first place. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web