Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #400241
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) |
| Date | 2026-06-25 11:29 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <111j3ej$3n1$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <1106o9f$3b6c7$1@dont-email.me> <111eli4$2g1qh$1@dont-email.me> <111gckb$rk9$1@reader1.panix.com> <111gkgm$2vhih$1@dont-email.me> |
In article <111gkgm$2vhih$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 24/06/2026 12:47, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <111eli4$2g1qh$1@dont-email.me>,
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 23/06/2026 19:12, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <111eavb$2c615$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:35, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> It's a
>>>>>>> total mess - it's all for handling serial terminals from the 1970's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure that the microprocessors you routinely use all still
>>>>>> support either the 16550 UART or the PL011 for debug purposes
>>>>>> if not for production purposes. Our most recently taped out
>>>>>> chip has a dozen pl011 compatible UARTS.
>>>>>
>>>>> 16550 UARTs are long obsolete. Some embedded processors might have
>>>>> UARTs that have register sets compatible with them, but I don't think it
>>>>> is common. Microcontrollers certainly don't make any attempt to have
>>>>> compatibility with those register sets.
>>>>
>>>> This is simply incorrect. Lots of parts still have integrated
>>>> 16550-compatible UARTs; the designware part that is common in a
>>>> lot of SoC's will even go up to 3MBAUD.
>>>
>>> I don't know all embedded microprocessors. I suspect that in order to
>>> remain as "PC compatible" as possible, x86 SoC's might have 16550
>>> compatible UARTs.
>>
>> Essentially every modern x86 SoC has at least one; usually
>> several. They may or may not be lined out, but they're there.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>But x86 SoC's are a tiny fraction of SoC or embedded processors, which
>are predominantly ARM based. And microcontrollers are orders of
>magnitude more common than processors, embedded or not.
Again, not something I was commenting on. Low(er) volume !=
obsolete.
>Assuming you are correct (and I have no reason to doubt it, but have not
>checked independently) that modern x86 SoCs have 16550 UARTs, then they
>are by definition not obsolete. But in pretty much all other devices,
>built-in UARTs are not 16550 compatible because there are no benefits in
>doing that, while alternative designs are significantly better (in
>various possible ways).
There are things I do not like about the 8250-series UARTs, but
I do not know what criteria you are using to judge the relative
merits of the 16550 versus alternatives. Given that you don't
use them, one wonders what your basis for comparison is, as
well.
>So "obsolete" was an exaggeration. But I think if you were to make a
>list of the top hundred microcontrollers and microprocessor SoCs, order
>by the number of devices shipped during the last few years, I do not
>expect you'd see more than a few low down in the list that had a 16550 UART.
Perhaps? But also irrelevant.
>(Scott also mentioned PL011 UARTs, which I did not discuss - these are
>ARM designs and thus common in some ARM microprocessors, though not in
>ARM microcontrollers. They are also not found in most industrial ARM
>SoCs, such as the i.mx families - makers of such chips already have
>their own peripheral device IPs, which they use. The PL011, from the
>quick look I had, seems a reasonable enough UART for many purposes, with
>support for DMA and timeouts. It appears to lack RS-485 support, but
>perhaps I missed some details.)
I just checked and it looks like ST ships PL011's in a bunch of
Cortex-M class parts. Of course, there are a ton of ARM
microcontrollers, but if you reread Scott's message (again) he
mentions mircoprocessors, not specificially uctlr's.
>> Some other systems may use 16550-compatible parts as well; as I
>> mentioned, DesignWare markets one as an embeddable piece of IP
>> that one can incorporate into one's own design.
>
>There are countless 16550 (or 8250, or similar) models available under a
>variety of licenses.
Yes.
>>> Many others do not. The NXP i.mx family, which is one of the most
>>> popular in industrial usage, have UARTs that do not have 16550 register
>>> sets. There is a reason linux/drivers/tty/serial has several dozen C
>>> files, supporting several dozen UARTs. Critically, embedded UARTs
>>> (excluding 16550 compatible ones) support DMA.
>>
>> I did not say that other systems used 16550, I was disputing the
>> incorrect statement that "16550 UARTs are long obsolete." If
>> you mean discrete UART chips signaling at TTL levels, whether
>> shifted to RS-232 levels or not, you're correct, but I took your
>> statement to be more general. Simply, they are not obsolete at
>> all, and they're extraordinarily common.
>
>I accept that they exist - I dispute that they are common, at least
>viewed in relation to the types of microprocessor SoCs or
>microcontrollers currently available, or in terms of numbers shipped.
That's fine, but I made no statement about that.
>>> And of the perhaps 20 or 30 microcontroller families I have used over
>>> the years, I don't remember ever having seen one with a UART that is
>>> 16550 compatible. (I did, on a couple of boards, use a dedicated 16x50
>>> UART chip, possibly a 16450.)
>>
>> Ok, but your personal experience is anecdotal and by your own
>> admission not representative of large machines. Judging that
>> the obsolesence (or not) of a part based on your own experience
>> alone is not a great way to make judgements about these things.
>
>Embedded ARM systems outship embedded x86 systems by a factor of 1000 or
>more (from my attempts at googling - noting that you don't get real,
>concrete figures without paying real, concrete money to marketing and
>analysis companies). There are also devices where the core is neither
>ARM nor x86. None of these, as a rule, have 16550's - they have much
>better UARTs. (For small microcontrollers, "better" can mean smaller
>and lower power, rather than necessarily additional useful features.)
term% uname -a
OpenBSD rv64.local 7.9 GENERIC.MP#5 riscv64
term% dmesg | grep 16550
com0 at simplebus0: dw16550
term%
>Remember, the sole reason anyone would want to use a 16550 is
>compatibility with code that expects a 16550. And that means, to a very
>large extent, old x86 code or newer x86 code that is written to be
>compatible with the old code and hardware.
Sure. I'm sure there are any number of reasons why a vendor
would pick any given type of UART; software compatibility with
existing drivers is surely one of them.
> [snip personal experience]
>
>> Of course, there are and have been others; I've personally
>> worked with Zilog and Motorola parts in addition to the
>> aforementioned two.
>
>To be clear here, you are saying you have worked with microprocessors or
>microcontrollers with other kinds of UARTs than 16550's or PL011's ? Or
>with other stand-alone UART chips?
Yes to both. In this case, I am referring specifically to
discrete UART parts from both vendors.
>I know both Motorola and Zilog
>produced stand-alone UART chips, and I know Motorola (then Freescale,
>now part of NXP) have made a countless number of processors and
>microcontrollers with built-in UARTs that are not 16550 compatible.
I don't know what the latter has to do with the former, or the
larger discussion. You seem to be discussing something that I
never said or implied.
FTR I am saying I have used discrete UART parts from both Zilog
(Zilog UARTs used to be common in Sun workstations) and Motorola
(they had a reasonable DUART that worked well with 68k).
>>>>>> Sure, the modem signals are obsolete and not often used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With 115k baud, it's less likely that the hardware flow
>>>>>> control signals (RTS/CTS) are still used (although XON/XOFF is
>>>>>> still useful) in most cases, but the classic serial port still
>>>>>> lives and is useful, particularly in embedded hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> I use serial ports all the time. I've never had any use for XON/XOFF,
>>>>> or hardware flow control (the RTS signal is often used for RS-485 drive
>>>>> enable), and regularly use 3 MBaud for local connections to fast
>>>>> microcontrollers.
>>>>
>>>> I use 3MBAUD, 16550-compatible UARTs embedded in AMD's EPYC SoCs
>>>> daily. We use hardware flow control to avoid dropping
>>>> characters when speaking to a fast uctlr running our own
>>>> embedded OS. The DW part in the SoC even supports auto HW flow
>>>> control and manages the FIFOs and signaling more or less
>>>> independently of the host (which actually caused a problem in
>>>> our driver a few months back).
>>>>
>>>> If reliable delivery of data is important to you, some kind of
>>>> flow control is useful, whether hardware or software based. If
>>>> it's just for debug spew, you may not care.
>>>
>>> If your systems are fast enough, and you have the right priorities for
>>> your threads, interrupts, DMAs, etc., then you don't need flow control.
>>>
>>> And most protocols (other than debug outputs) used over serial ports in
>>> embedded systems are not continuous traffic flows - you have packets,
>>> and typically have request/response patterns. As long as you have DMA
>>> to give you FIFOs that are big enough, you can consider the packet
>>> reception and answering as high-level software flow control.
>>
>> Again, extrapolating from your own personal experience to other
>> areas is leading to a specious conclusion. You hinted at the
>> issue: _if_ your systems can keep up, you may be ok. But on a
>> large system, running a multiuser multitasking operating system,
>> doing a ton of IO on high speed devices, dealing with many
>> thousands of interrupts a second across many cores, you may not
>> be able to keep up.
>
>Of course you can, if that's what you want to do with the system.
No, not really.
Perhaps in the uctlr world that is true, but in that world
workloads tend to be fixed and predictible; in the world of
large systems, things are far more dynamic. Interrupts can, and
do, get lost; FIFOs get full; data can get corrupted; flow
control and synchronization between endpoints in a
communications protocol is useful.
Perhaps that doesn't matter for your use cases, and you've never
needed it; but don't extrapolate to other use cases you have no
experience with.
>A Gbit network interface generates thousands of interrupts a second. But
>is entirely fair to say that general purpose OS's, and x86 hardware, are
>not well suited to quick reactions and low or predictable latencies.
The hardware is fine. It's the OS that usually struggles
because there may be more load on the machine than can
reasonably be accommodated.
>Throughput is usually not an issue, but accurate timing is hard to
>achieve. It is not without reason that many embedded systems have a
>Linux SOM for networking and high-level decisions, and microcontrollers
>for the fast reaction and deterministic control stuff. (Many SoC's
>targetting industrial embedded Linux have microcontrollers in the SoC
>itself.) And it is also fair to say that if you want to have demanding
>serial port usage on a general-purpose OS, you want a decent, modern
>UART rather than an old-fashioned 16550.
Again, you haven't specified what's "old-fashioned" about it, or
what makes alternatives superior; on modern systems, this is not
your father's 8250. Modern SoCs support DMA and MMIO accesses
for UARTs and speeds up to 3MBAUD or more, even if the registers
are the same 'ol 16550 registers since the 486 era (with some
extensions, of course).
Beyond that, you're correct that many modern SoCs have embedded
microcontrollers capable of real-time response; yay. Using one
just to avoid flow control over a serial protocol seems like
going to extremes to avoid a simple thing. As I mentioned, the
DW part even does CTS/RTS HW flow control automatically, without
software intervention.
This is hardly an obsolete part in any measurable sense, and
arguments about the volume of microcontrollers using other parts
don't make it obsolete.
- Dan C.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 17:49 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 18:16 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 18:24 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 00:28 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 08:56 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 10:26 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 09:10 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 11:34 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-09 12:25 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 12:31 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 13:43 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 13:53 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 00:02 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 08:55 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 00:00 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 09:06 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 00:34 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 12:37 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 11:40 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 00:01 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:42 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-22 22:38 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 14:40 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-24 02:04 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 04:42 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-09 06:02 -0400
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 12:18 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 23:45 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 13:55 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 23:56 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 21:52 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 21:55 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 22:05 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 06:03 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 00:24 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 00:07 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 16:47 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 02:49 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 19:52 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 03:57 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-20 15:49 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 16:30 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-22 14:56 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:23 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-10 14:56 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 13:54 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 23:47 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 21:42 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 06:21 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 00:14 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 00:31 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 00:15 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 21:08 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-13 00:10 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 23:01 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 06:47 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 13:27 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-12 01:35 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-13 14:26 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-13 14:32 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-14 00:45 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 13:55 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-16 04:36 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-16 13:08 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-16 13:11 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-17 03:11 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 12:13 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-17 23:47 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 20:26 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-18 07:30 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 04:36 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 04:38 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-18 23:03 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 13:42 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-19 22:40 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 16:40 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 02:50 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 19:53 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 03:59 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 16:31 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-22 00:59 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 14:06 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-22 22:40 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 14:41 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-24 02:05 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 04:36 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-24 12:19 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-24 21:47 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 12:44 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 12:02 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 00:16 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 18:41 -0500
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-18 07:30 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 03:49 -0500
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-18 23:06 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 01:20 -0500
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-19 08:56 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 10:42 +0100
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 10:18 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 15:29 +0100
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 16:18 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 18:07 +0100
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-19 18:51 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 21:04 +0100
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 19:55 +0000
[OT] Google AI - behavioral analysis (was: [something else]) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-20 01:52 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 03:03 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-19 18:50 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-19 13:46 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 15:49 +0100
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-19 17:25 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-21 01:42 +0300
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-21 12:18 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-21 23:15 +0300
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-22 04:33 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-22 10:01 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-22 14:56 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-23 07:25 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-23 15:35 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-23 18:07 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-23 17:12 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-23 21:07 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 23:00 +0300
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-24 08:32 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-24 21:54 +0300
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-24 21:09 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-24 10:48 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-24 10:47 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-24 15:02 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-25 11:29 +0000
NIC interrupt rates (was UART discussion; previously was Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-25 15:31 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-25 19:15 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-25 18:29 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-25 20:52 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-26 14:58 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 11:46 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-27 01:57 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-25 22:53 +0300
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-27 01:52 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-27 19:46 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-07-01 13:16 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-07-03 17:00 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-27 20:49 +0300
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-07-01 13:17 +0000
UARTs (was Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network)) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-27 18:50 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-23 17:39 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-23 21:11 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-24 11:04 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-24 15:27 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-25 11:56 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-25 21:30 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-27 02:22 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-28 18:59 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-07-07 23:19 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-07-08 14:52 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-07-08 20:56 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-24 15:51 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 14:44 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 22:30 +0300
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 22:48 +0300
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-24 12:18 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-24 22:00 +0300
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-24 20:09 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-25 00:25 +0300
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-25 12:00 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-25 15:37 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2026-06-24 21:21 +0000
Time from official time-services (was Re: ...some arbitrary subject...) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-28 00:15 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 16:31 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 17:50 +0100
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-19 18:54 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 19:58 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 21:15 +0100
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 22:09 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 03:00 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 10:33 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 19:04 +0100
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-19 18:55 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 21:07 +0100
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-20 13:53 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-20 19:25 -0400
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-19 22:49 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 18:06 -0500
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-19 06:59 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 14:47 -0500
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-19 22:47 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-20 14:02 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 02:21 -0700
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 09:59 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 00:26 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-06-09 21:21 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 12:28 +0000
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 07:24 +0200
Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 14:44 +0200
csiph-web