Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #400050
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Date | 2026-06-14 14:33 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <110me3t$gli$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <10v7b32$2u85v$1@dont-email.me> <110ghmv$21vi3$1@dont-email.me> <110jgsg$4ll$1@reader1.panix.com> <110k0mp$329k6$1@dont-email.me> |
In article <110k0mp$329k6$1@dont-email.me>, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 13/06/2026 14:02, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article <110ghmv$21vi3$1@dont-email.me>, >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> [snip] >>> As for my '"modern compilers are evil" crowd' comment, there are people >>> (not anyone involved in this discussion) who really do fall into that >>> camp. I've seen people who are experienced and respected developers >>> make all sorts of accusations to compiler developers, claiming they are >>> only interested in high scores on synthetic benchmarks and directly >>> insulting their motivations and integrity, blaming them for "breaking" >>> their code that relied on the effects of some kinds of UB. It is always >>> frustrating when you have code that works fine with one compiler >>> version, but using another compiler results in failure due to UB in your >>> code - especially if writing correct code gives inefficient results with >>> the first compiler. And it's fine to say you'd be happier if a >>> particular thing that is UB in C were not UB - but it is unreasonable to >>> blame compiler developers for implementing the language as it is defined. >> >> Eh...I think those people have a point. >> >> Note, I don't think that "modern compilers are evil" (I mean, >> wow, that's a strong word) and I certainly do not think it is >> appropriate to malign the people who write them personally over >> what one does with code. > >I think it is important for tools to be helpful, and it's fine to >complain if a tool is being directly unhelpful - or ask for improvements >when you think it could be better. Yes. >> But I _do_ think it is fair to say that UB is very easy to fall >> into in C, that programs that have worked correctly (insofar as >> their intended behavior as written) for years can suddenly fail >> because latent UB is treated differently in a point revision of >> a compiler, and that that (as you point out) can be incredibly >> frustrating for the authors. > >It can certainly happen, yes. And I fully sympathise on these few >occasions when changes to the standard has meant that code that >previously had defined behaviour, now has different or undefined >behaviour. (However, I think that for some kinds of code, programmers >could be better at specifying exactly what standards their code >requires, and the standards they use when compiling code.) > >But it is important to realise that if you write code with UB, it is >/your/ mistake - not the mistake of the compiler developers, or the >mistake of the standards authors. Compiler vendors can (and do!) try to >help programmers find their mistakes - experience shows, however, that >many programmers reach first for bug report forms or complaints in >forums before compiler tools like sanitisers or even enabling warnings >on their builds. > >Programming in C is a cooperative effort - including the standards >authors, the compiler vendors, and the C programmers. Each group can >try to help the others, but each is ultimately responsible for their own >part. Here's the problem that I have with this line of reasoning. C is a language that has considerable history; there was a large body of C code written before the first standard was ever created, in 1988; C was a teenager. And it took many years for decent quality ANSI C compilers to be ubiquitous. C could legally drink by then. "Undefined Behavior", in C, in the manner usually discussed in this newsgroup, was introduced with the first standard. That means that there is --- still --- a large body of software that has "UB" that was put there before UB existed as a thing programmers needed to worry about in C. Even once it was a part of C, the concept was communicated poorly. Some people seem to delight in this, believing precision in interpreting the standard in abstruse ways is an expression of deep technical expertise; but it really is not. Yes, UB is created by programmers. However, in large systems, it may be that it was created inadvertantly; someone makes a change that subtley invalidates some invariant that an unknown caller far away in the code base (or in another one that relies on the change via an indirect dependency) and now you've got UB; locally, everything appears correct; but it's the combination where the UB manifests. >> Regehr called out a dichotomy with UB: programmers using a >> language hate it; compiler writers love it. > >I think Regehr has made some good points in his writings, but I do not >agree with him on everything. > >As a programmer, I am a fan of the concept of UB. I am quite happy with >the idea that operations have a pre-condition, and that if there is no >"right answer" for a given input, I should not provide that input. I >prefer that signed integer arithmetic overflow is UB, and do not want it >to be wrapping or have some other semantics - to me, it is far clearer >that way. If I have UB in my code, it's a bug - no different from any >other bug I might make. This example makes little sense to me. If you don't want integer overflow, then don't overflow; the techniques for avoiding it are pretty well known. But why is specifically better that it is UB, rather than than trapping in debug builds, or having IB semantics based on the underlying machine? It seems to be that the burden on the programmer is the same. >It is the case that in C, there are some kinds of UB that can be quite >subtle. However, you rarely need to risk meeting them. Yes, there are >pitfalls - don't go near them, and they don't matter. I disagree. I think almost all non-trivial programs have UB to a greater or lesser extent, whether they intend to or not. >However, it is unfortunately the case that sometimes avoiding UB can be >costly in performance terms. An example would be if you have need of >type-punning - perhaps you have a float in memory and you want to access >it as an uint32_t for some reason. Casting a float * to an uint32_t * >and using that new pointer is UB. Some compilers will nonetheless >generate the code you want after such a cast. Some compilers might not, >depending on details of the rest of the surrounding code, because it is >UB. A non-UB solution would be to use memcpy(), or a type-punning >union. For highly optimising compilers, that's fine - the code >generated by gcc or clang for a memcpy() here is likely to be as >efficient as you could get - directly reading the float from memory to >an integer register. For other compilers, however, you might get a call >to a memcpy() library function in an external DLL, taking orders of >magnitude more cycles. What is the poor programmer to do? Write code >that is portable and correct, but very slow with some implementations? >Write code that "cheats" and is efficient on some implementations but >might not give the desired results on others? Use pre-processor >monstrosities to detect different compilers and adapt accordingly? That >is what I see as the biggest issue resulting from compiler optimisation >based on UB. I don't know what the "best" answer here is. This is kind of my point. If you need a fast way to convery >> Here's my own vignette: I was chatting with a friend who works >> on LLVM and clang some time ago. I said, "I don't want UB" and >> he replied, "no, you really do." I asked him what he meant and >> he responded that I wanted a compiler that is capable of >> optimizing my program; "sure, but I still don't want UB." We >> went on for a bit, and it became clear that he saw UB as _the_ >> vehicle for unlocking optimization. >> >> I realized that we were not speaking the same language _at all_. >> He and I both wanted a language where we could write programs >> that yield efficient object code. He saw UB as essential for >> that; but what I want is a language with well-defined semantics >> that can be aggressively optimized. > >I too want a language with well-defined semantics that can be >aggressively optimised. But I do not see UB as a hinder to that. UB is literally the opposite of well-defined. >I am happy knowing that I cannot divide by 0, Yup. That should be a trap. >or find the square root of a negative number (in the real >domain). Yup. That should be a trap. >I am happy knowing that I cannot add two ints if their sum >overflows the range of their type, Yup. That should be a trap (if you want wrapping semantics, you should request it explicitly). >and that I cannot call a function with a different number or >type of parameters than its definition. Yup. That should be a compile-time error. >I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how things could be >any different, other than in a managed language with significant >overhead from run-time checks - and that goes against the >"aggressively optimised" requirement. There are existence proofs of other languages that can, and do, do these things, and do them well. I hate to keep beating this drum, but I think Rust does well here: in safe Rust, UB is a compile-time error; in *unsafe* Rust, there are tools to help find where programmers violate the language's invariants. >Having "well-defined semantics" does not mean the language should accept >anything that happens to fit the syntax and grammar rules, or that all >functions and operations should give a defined result for all inputs. I never said that it did. >It means that the set of valid inputs is clearly defined, along with the >outputs and effects you get when the inputs are valid. So I was the one who said "well-defined semantics" and I had a specific meaning in mind. Your definition is incomplete with respect to that meaning: in addition to what you said, invalid inputs should be rejected, either as a compile time error, or by generating an exception or panic at runtime. If you want to live dangerously and turn the runtime checks off for performance reasons, then you get 2's complement behavior for integers or whatever the machine does for the others. >(There are plenty of points in the C standards where the wording could >make the semantics clearer, or where the range of input values could >easily have been larger - I am not suggesting C is as well-defined as it >could reasonably be.) It's not just that it's nowhere close to being as well-defined as it should be, it's because the language as defined permits behavior that varies far too widely, specifically because of UB. Consider one of the examples you gave: signed integer overflow. The standard doesn't say that you _can't_ add two numbers together if you overflow, it just says that if you do, the language imposes no requirements on the resulting behavior. It may trap, it may elide the addition entirely, or it may do it and let the result be whatever the underlying machine does. That is, the _language_ does not say that it's a bug; it says that it's not going to say anything about it at all. This is one reason the committee is trying to reign some of this in. >> That, I think, is the tension: there was a fundamental breakdown >> in communication between the users of the language, and those >> defining and implementing it. My subjective sense is that in >> the past few years things are getting somewhat better, but it is >> hard to evolve something as critical and widely used as C. > >Communication between the separate parties is always an issue, and it is >easy for it to be a one-way street with a language standards committee >dictating the rules with little attention to feedback, then compiler >vendors following these rules without listening to the users. > >A challenge here, perhaps, is that users are a very diverse group. How >much should compiler vendors cater for those that put a lot of effort >into correctness and want top efficiency, or those that are less >knowledgable about the language but want to avoid the consequences of >their mistakes? What about those working with old code written for >different compilers with different unwritten rules? It is not easy to >please everyone. I think that's simplistic; not many programmers actively want to "avoid the consequences of their mistakes." Do you really believe that they do? If so, why? Conversely, there *is* this kind of machismo attitude among many C programmers that it requires a superior intellect to truly understand this language, and those who do not (or who make any mistake in their understanding) are simply unworthy. I have repeatedly observed this over many decades now, and when I see it, I think that it is odious. My experience is that most programmers are highly intelligent, capable people. They are not wrong to want behavior they can rely on, particularly when things are not obvious, as they often are not. They also want a language that requires a less lawyerly read of to understand its semantics; that could go the way of formality (my preferred approach) or just clearer exposition. Either would be preferable to the current state. In fairness, I think the current members of the committee recognize this. >>> I am not in any way saying that critics of aspects of C (the language, >>> the standards, or compiler implementations) should be dismissed or >>> despised - merely that the example of loop elimination leading to UB and >>> unexpected results is regularly used as "evidence" by those that hold >>> extreme positions about C, despite it being very unrealistic for the >>> issue to cause problems in real coding practice. >> >> The kernel I am working on has about 5 million lines of code. >> That code has been evolving for 40 years; some of it predates >> the ISO standards and even the ANSI standard. It has been >> updated for newer compilers, sure, but in some places the >> treatment is surface-level: using ISO-style function prototypes >> and definition syntax, for example. But deep problems remain in >> parts, and contraints on engineering resources couple with >> economic and business pressures so that it's not going to get >> cleaned up any time soon. I'm sure there is UB in it; in fact, >> I know there is. But them's the breaks; and yet, customers are >> using it in production. Because of this, upgrading toolchains >> is laborious and complex, and takes a lot of time, and new >> compilers are (rightly) viewed with suspicion. That is not a >> great situation, but I don't think anyone is angry at the >> compiler people over it. > >I think that is a good way to handle the situation. In my projects, I >do not normally upgrade or change toolchains. While I think the risk of >UB is small in my own code, small does not mean non-existent. And for >my work, generated code that behaves correctly in terms of C semantics >but has different execution times or code size might also be an issue - >so changes in toolchains mean a lot of extra testing and qualification. Obviously in a production setting tools should be tested and qualified. But the danger posed by UB adds unacceptable risk on large projects, and the burden for updating a toolchain is too high. That is as much an indictment of the language as of any particular project. As a counter example, there was the Harvey project, which was a fork of Plan 9 where the Plan 9 C dialect was replaced with ISO C; we accounted for this by having CI build with 6 seperate compilers; this flushed out a lot of bugs. I am surprised that more projects do not adopt canary CI builds against newer toolchains. >In addition, for some microcontrollers the toolchains have relatively >small user bases and consequently higher risks of unknown bugs in the >toolchains themselves. Sometimes there are also implementation-specific >features that change between versions (though that is less of an issue >these days). Fun fact: part of the reason Google got involved in clang and LLVM development was because the vendor toolchain for a particular microcontroller used in android phones was buggy and would crash (that is, the compiler itself crashed). The solution was not to live with it; it was to build a better toolchain. Google could afford to do that; I recognize not many organizations can. >> And just as it's not acceptable to blame compiler writers for >> implementating the language as it is defined, it's not really >> acceptable to blame programmers either; some of the people who >> put the UB there are (literally) dead, and there's just not >> enough time in the day to go clean it all up. I wish there was >> more compassion for that. > >Being dead does not resolve you of the responsibility - the person that >wrote the code with UB is the person who wrote the code with the UB, >just like any other bugs. That person wrote the code with the error. See above. Those people may well have written the code before C was standardized and before UB as we know it now existed. Also, by definition UB is not an error. >It might not be fair to hold it against them - there are a great many >possible reasons why it was not their fault (typically management is >more at fault than the coders!). And placing blame is rarely a useful >exercise - usually it does not matter where the bugs came from, only >that they are there and need to be fixed or worked around. Exactly. The footguns hiding in C code that has worked perfectly for decades, dating back to before the standards existed, are legion. Caveat emptor. _Or_ the code may have been written with careful regard for the standard, but something _else_ may have been changed that now leads to exposure to UB. For example, perhaps code was written that multiples two numbers, `a*b`; a known to be `unsigned int` when written, but `b` is a signed int. But maybe that is hidden behind a typedef; some time in the future, the typedef is changed so that `a` is now `unsigned short`; perhaps someone realized that the domain values never exceed 16 bits and by changing the definition some critical structure now fits in a single cache line. But also now the type promotion rules kick so that `a*b` happens with the factors as `signed int` and in there exist values of `a` and `b` where `a*b` overflows: UB. The code had no UB; the change was elsewhere; no one saw this because the tests all passed and everything looked ok; then someone upgrades the compiler and now things break. Who's fault is that? And no, this is not contrived; this is exactly the sort of thing that happens on large, long-lived projects. >> As said earlier, C is what it is. I suspect that it will >> continue to make incremental improvements, but we're basically >> stuck with what we have. > >Agreed. ...but be careful blaming the programmer. - Dan C.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 19:53 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 20:15 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 18:49 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 04:53 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 02:35 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:32 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 20:07 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 11:48 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-28 09:18 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 04:57 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:35 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 09:52 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 05:20 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-29 13:22 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:16 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 13:52 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-30 14:40 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 16:36 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 15:48 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:14 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 13:25 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 22:14 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:22 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-30 03:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 12:47 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 09:56 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 11:00 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 17:12 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 14:07 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:54 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 10:02 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 12:19 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 14:46 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 14:22 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 17:15 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-29 15:59 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 17:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:48 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 19:09 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:00 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 22:14 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 12:09 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 17:05 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:34 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:29 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 18:53 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 12:28 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 20:49 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:03 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 13:56 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 22:54 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:52 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-29 20:31 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 02:03 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 19:02 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 12:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-30 12:29 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 13:56 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 16:43 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-31 03:37 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 19:53 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 12:16 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:47 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 12:55 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-05-31 09:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:49 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 11:10 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 13:18 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 10:24 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 17:35 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 12:46 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 22:24 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 18:26 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 08:28 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 15:54 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 08:39 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 02:33 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:48 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-02 06:37 -0400
Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 16:28 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 03:37 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 16:31 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 13:36 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 23:49 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 18:04 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-06 03:10 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 23:50 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 02:20 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 12:39 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 23:15 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 18:51 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-09 09:46 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 15:07 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-09 01:25 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-09 18:29 -0400
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 16:01 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 12:36 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 16:49 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-11 15:20 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 18:08 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-11 16:30 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 20:52 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-12 02:20 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-13 14:57 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-21 15:26 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-22 03:40 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 07:50 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-21 14:26 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-22 03:56 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-29 06:27 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-06 15:47 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-06 16:36 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-06 16:43 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-06 17:41 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-05 10:41 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 10:49 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-06 16:15 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-06 18:06 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-07 22:34 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-08 23:05 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-09 10:19 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 15:12 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 14:37 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 18:30 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 14:55 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 23:32 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 14:47 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-11 08:56 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-11 11:38 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-11 14:05 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 15:38 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-11 23:07 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:43 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-12 02:02 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:34 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-12 10:58 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 12:27 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-13 12:36 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-13 12:03 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-14 12:35 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-13 12:02 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-13 12:13 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-13 12:44 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-14 17:22 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-14 21:24 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-15 17:52 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-13 18:32 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-14 14:33 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-14 22:02 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 15:55 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-15 10:09 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-15 10:43 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-15 16:01 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-15 17:57 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-16 10:10 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-24 17:45 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 12:27 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-24 16:58 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-15 19:26 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-15 21:59 -0400
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-16 04:59 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-29 05:41 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-29 15:23 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 07:36 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-18 20:27 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-20 04:12 +0800
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 13:29 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-12 02:08 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-12 11:02 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:45 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-10 15:11 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 22:44 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 16:19 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-11 11:50 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 16:28 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-11 23:46 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 18:29 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-12 01:54 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-12 11:37 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 07:58 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-18 20:28 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:35 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 06:29 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 16:10 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:29 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 06:41 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 11:24 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-08 08:35 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 17:33 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-09 00:54 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-09 10:08 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 13:40 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 09:37 -0700
Meaning of "expression" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 14:05 -0700
Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-09 15:17 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-09 14:53 +0100
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-09 16:30 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-09 17:13 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-10 09:04 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-10 11:10 +0100
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-10 13:29 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 03:17 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-10 13:43 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 14:08 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-11 09:10 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 20:29 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-12 12:55 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-13 15:01 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 20:12 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-11 15:13 -0400
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-12 00:37 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-11 23:05 +0000
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-12 01:18 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:41 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-28 02:49 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:00 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 18:28 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-14 13:40 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 14:13 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-19 08:32 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-19 15:09 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-11 20:41 -0400
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-28 03:16 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-06-09 19:27 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-09 19:19 +0100
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 15:22 -0700
Re: Meaning of "expression" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 00:42 -0700
The meaning of 42 ; (was: Re: Meaning of "expression") Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-15 19:42 +0800
Re: Meaning of "expression" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 05:36 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-06 03:22 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 23:56 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-07 13:37 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 02:33 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 09:37 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 17:29 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-18 20:30 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-08 00:16 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 12:41 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 17:37 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-09 16:05 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 13:59 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 13:05 +0000
Parentheses (was: this girl calls c ugly) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 14:38 +0100
Re: Parentheses (was: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0000
Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-03 22:30 +0000
Re: Parentheses Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-03 16:24 -0700
Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-04 02:03 +0000
Re: Parentheses Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 01:12 +0100
Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-04 01:58 +0000
Re: Parentheses Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 11:37 +0100
Re: Parentheses cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 10:51 +0000
Re: Parentheses Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 12:47 +0100
Re: Parentheses Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 14:57 +0200
Re: Parentheses cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 14:31 +0000
[OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:54 +0200
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0100
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 17:39 +0200
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 16:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 21:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 14:43 -0700
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-02 17:08 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 19:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 00:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-03 13:14 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 15:10 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:31 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 10:15 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 16:29 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 03:45 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 04:02 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 09:04 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 18:11 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-31 19:34 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 19:10 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 11:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:36 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 14:26 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 02:34 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 12:40 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 14:35 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 14:18 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:47 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:57 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 16:27 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 16:46 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 20:15 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 20:54 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 20:29 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 14:06 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 22:47 +0100
Famous (hopefully last) words [on this topic] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-05 00:27 +0200
Re: Famous (hopefully last) words [on this topic] Bad Post <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-05 01:20 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 16:09 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 00:44 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 17:26 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-05 12:58 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 14:27 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 02:47 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 00:53 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 11:04 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 05:34 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-06 03:45 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-06 03:44 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-06 07:39 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:25 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-12 08:31 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-05 09:29 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 12:39 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-05 15:42 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 16:50 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 11:09 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 20:29 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 16:18 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 17:23 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 16:47 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 19:57 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 20:34 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 22:28 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 21:58 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-06-04 23:25 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 02:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 19:47 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 21:04 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-06-04 19:13 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-05 10:34 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-12 08:32 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 11:05 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 12:11 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-04 16:33 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 14:16 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 00:02 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 18:36 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 02:54 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 05:49 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 11:01 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 11:53 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-06-04 18:45 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 20:19 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 20:31 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 20:41 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 20:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 00:03 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-05 00:18 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 03:02 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-05 14:04 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-06 03:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-06 15:13 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-06 17:53 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 11:59 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:21 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 06:38 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 09:52 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 02:42 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:50 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 11:47 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:55 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 14:39 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 15:11 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 08:41 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 02:07 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:38 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:01 -0700
It is not futile to change the subject line (Was: this girl calls c ugly) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:39 +0000
Re: It is not futile to change the subject line (Was: this girl calls c ugly) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:42 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 11:46 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 11:09 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:25 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 14:20 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:12 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 04:16 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-01 15:23 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 16:06 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 23:24 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:35 +0200
Operator precedence in other (non-C, but "C-like") languages (Was: something about a girl) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:36 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-01 11:04 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 14:04 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-01 18:48 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 21:04 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 09:17 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 09:09 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 12:07 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 14:37 +0200
Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 15:06 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-21 14:13 -0700
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-22 08:58 +0200
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 03:35 -0700
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-22 10:50 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-22 12:59 +0200
Storage needed when there are bit-field members Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-28 09:42 -0700
Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 18:06 -0700
Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 20:20 -0700
Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-14 14:56 -0700
Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-14 22:30 +0000
Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 16:10 -0700
Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-16 15:20 +0000
Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-08-19 19:34 +0000
Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-19 15:26 -0700
Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-14 14:19 -0700
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-22 10:45 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-22 15:23 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-14 13:23 -0700
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-18 20:32 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:02 -0700
Re: Microcontroller software stacks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-14 12:51 -0700
Re: Microcontroller software stacks Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-15 05:02 +0800
Re: Microcontroller software stacks bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-15 01:18 +0100
Re: Microcontroller software stacks Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-16 13:52 +0800
Re: Microcontroller software stacks Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 14:06 -0700
Re: Microcontroller software stacks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-14 21:42 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-15 22:13 +0300
Re: Microcontroller software stacks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-15 19:39 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-15 23:22 +0300
Re: Microcontroller software stacks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-16 14:38 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-16 16:11 -0700
Re: Microcontroller software stacks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 16:16 -0700
Re: Microcontroller software stacks cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-18 20:34 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-08-19 19:57 +0000
Re: Microcontroller software stacks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 17:31 -0700
Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-20 04:51 +0800
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 03:58 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2026-06-06 19:02 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-31 19:11 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 16:08 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 16:32 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 17:12 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 14:07 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:10 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 19:18 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:17 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 21:47 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-29 15:57 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:34 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-29 23:18 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 01:26 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-30 04:25 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 12:01 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-31 00:29 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 10:59 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-01 00:33 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 02:26 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 13:24 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 08:09 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 04:15 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 14:58 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 01:04 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-29 23:20 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 11:18 +0200
csiph-web