Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #403791
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: .5 against 0.5f |
| Date | 2026-10-29 18:55 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <11c01bf$2t866$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <11brir0$1uh9q$4@kst.eternal-september.org> <11bt4ua$139ta$8@dont-email.me> <11btlrl$2ojn1$1@kst.eternal-september.org> <11btv9c$139ta$12@dont-email.me> <11bu23t$2rgo2$5@kst.eternal-september.org> |
On 2026-10-29 00:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 2026-10-28 21:27, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>>> The thought of something "implicit" going on here is a thought that
>>>> might stem from (knowing) the inherent mechanisms and quirks of the
>>>> C-language not necessarily what one would logically expect.
>>> My logical expectation is based on knowing C.
>>
>> And knowing also a lot of the internals, and C-standards documents,
>> I'm sure. (My point was just that "normal" C-programmers might not
>> have that background and would "logically" assume different. - But
>> since you had clarified the word by using a more appropriate one in
>> this post I'm fine with that now. Thanks.)
>>
>>>> My expectation (for sensibly defined programming languages) would be
>>>> that literals for two different "real numbers" types are generic WRT
>>>> those types; they should be usable [in "C"] without loss (or kludges)
>>>> with 'float' and 'double'.
>>> Sure, a compiler can generate code to store (float)0.1 in f without
>>> doing a conversion, as long as the semantics are consistent.
>>
>> Only that my view here is that you need a "conversion" in both cases,
>> since you primarily have to convert from a string representation of
>> the literal to the appropriate internal (binary) form. And given the
>> _program contexts_ you can do _the one_ appropriate conversion for
>> the types involved (i.e. Text->Float and Text->Double, respectively).
>
> I don't think of the process that takes a source code construct
> like `0.1` and yields a value of 0.1 at run time as a "conversion".
> It's just the meaning of the token. "Text" is not a C type. [...]
Sure. I was speaking about source code text, that gets transformed
to some binary representation by the compiler. I took the view from
a programmer's perspective of a language; to be clear, not mandating
(as some here do) that a programmer should read the C-standard to
learn and understand the language, but as more typical, a textbook.
>
>> Note: my argumentation is based on questioning the existence of 'F'.
>> So I'd appreciate to hear of any enlightening application cases, ones
>> that would be impossible when 'F' in literals wouldn't be present.
>
> By 'F', you mean the 'f' or 'F' suffix on a floating constant, right?
> (Your use of upper case threw me off for a moment. No biggie.)
Yes. (Didn't intend to confuse people.) I'm regularly using (in "C")
capital letters for such qualifiers, so that they better stand out.
The 'L' for example (that I use more often; 'F' I've never used since
I also rarely do 'float' operations) is often (depending on the font)
harder to distinguish (from '1') if written in lower-case ('l').
>
>> (And, ideally, practically relevant usages. - We know that "C" is as
>> it is, and as it is there's some unavoidable consequences from that.)
>
> Yes, we know that from "C", which is the topic of this newsgroup.
> I'm not sure what distinction you're making.
I wanted to avoid reflexes like "accept how it is or leave" comments.
(I obviously failed with making that intent clear.)
As I've explained above, I was looking at it from a programmer's
perspective, not from someone who has the C-standard as bible on his
nightstand. With experiences from many other languages the "F-topic",
its necessity, is not that clear if we look at "C" conceptionally.
> You seem to be
> implying that C imposes some set of obscure rules on top of what
> all programmers know. 0.0 is something that everyone recognizes,
> while 0.0f is an obscure C feature.
(I think 0 is a bad example, for some reasons in "C" and general.)
That "0.1" is (or may be, depending on the actual 'float' and 'double'
characteristics) effectively something different than "0.1F" is the
trivial part, unnecessary to explain. I had expanded below what was
bothering me.
>
> I don't think of it that way. C code is governed by the rules of C.
>
>>> But 0.1f and 0.1 are of different types. If they happen to behave
>>> the same way in some context, it's a consequence of the C language
>>> rules.
>>
>> Yes, sure. Only that I think that context should suffice to interpret
>> "0.1" appropriately!
>
> In many cases, yes, the final result is likely to be the same.
> Even so, using 0.1 rather than 0.1f can result in less efficient
> generated code if the compiler isn't sufficiently clever, or perhaps
> even if it is.
>
> And if I'm trying to use type float and avoid type double (as, for
> example, David Brown has good reasons to do), writing `0.1f` is a
> great way to avoid having to think about how clever the compiler
> has to be to avoid unnecessary conversions.
Actually I had been thinking about applications that David might
have - I recall he once said about him using 'float' to match some
controller hardware restrictions and stay efficient (or some such).
And while the initialization sample (below) did not make any sense
to me I was then thinking about expressions with mixed types where
it could make sense. But the consequences did also not make "much"
sense to me when thinking about it. Two basic cases appeared to me.
One was having expressions with mixed types (float and double);
in the micro-controller-case that would anyway have to be handled
in a sub-optimal way (performance-wise) when 'double's appear. And
in case of using just 'float' variables with non-F-tagged constants
my expectation would be that the compiler would/should take care of
the appropriate, sensible, efficient use of the constant. (Operating
in 'float' precision but interpreting "Real" literals as 'double'?!)
You say, "avoid having to think about how clever the compiler" is;
I understand that. But wouldn't it be more sensible to compose your
"Real" expressions in appropriate parts that reflect and guarantee
the precision explicitly? (As "C" is as it is it might be appealing
to use the 'F' instead, I admit. As said I was principally question
the necessity of 'F' in "C" from a design perspective.)
>
>>> Note in particular that this:
>>> double d = 0.1f;
>>> has different semantics than
>>> double d = 0.1;
>>> if double has more precision than float.
>>
>> Sure. But isn't that difference basically just a home-brewed C-issue?
>
> "Home-brewed"? It's a rule imposed by the C language.
(I meant; is it a "home-brewed" consequence of the C-language design.)
>
>> I'd be curious why one would write the former in the first place.
>> Will a programmer or program designer gain something by assigning a
>> 'float' constant literal to a 'double' variable?
>
> Probably not. The point is that there are real semantic differences
> between 0.1f and 0.1.
Sure.
Janis
> [...]
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
.5 against 0.5f fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 11:53 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-27 17:45 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 18:50 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-27 19:01 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 20:15 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-27 19:54 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:10 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 02:20 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-27 21:35 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 18:00 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-27 22:15 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-28 06:54 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 21:57 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 14:18 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 02:19 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-28 21:54 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:58 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 02:11 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 23:21 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-27 18:40 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-27 12:29 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:11 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:25 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 21:43 +0200
Re: .5 against 0.5f Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 22:05 +0200
Re: .5 against 0.5f Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 22:51 +0200
Re: .5 against 0.5f Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-27 20:05 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 21:03 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:41 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-28 16:23 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 02:25 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f makendo <makendo@makendo.invalid> - 2026-10-29 18:04 +0800
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 05:01 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-29 13:55 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-29 14:32 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-29 23:19 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-30 00:50 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-30 05:01 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 02:39 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-30 11:06 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 11:12 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-30 14:07 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-30 13:55 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 07:45 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 21:17 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-27 19:58 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 17:43 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 18:06 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-28 00:49 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 18:23 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 16:38 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 13:27 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-29 00:08 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 16:56 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-29 18:55 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-29 09:30 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 04:54 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-29 19:57 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-29 20:56 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-29 23:06 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-29 13:39 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 16:56 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-30 04:38 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-30 09:11 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-30 14:54 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-30 15:25 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 14:45 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 12:02 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-30 21:01 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 21:41 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-28 08:45 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-28 01:50 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 07:32 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 07:51 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 07:55 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-28 16:27 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-28 17:44 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-28 16:22 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 19:15 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 19:47 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-28 19:10 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 13:31 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-28 22:44 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-29 00:27 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 16:39 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-29 00:22 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-28 17:59 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-29 01:50 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-29 10:45 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-29 14:56 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-29 16:34 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-29 15:47 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 01:17 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 16:46 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-29 11:56 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-29 17:57 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 16:06 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-30 00:21 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-29 19:49 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-29 22:55 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 16:29 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-30 03:57 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 20:53 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-30 05:06 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-30 09:33 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 10:58 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-29 23:46 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-29 18:37 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-30 04:22 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-29 17:58 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-29 15:42 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 01:27 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-30 02:08 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 19:37 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-28 08:39 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 22:25 +0200
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-29 10:48 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 04:59 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-31 12:18 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:26 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-29 00:12 +0200
Re: .5 against 0.5f bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-28 22:33 +0000
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-29 11:01 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 16:05 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 11:58 +0200
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-29 10:59 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:34 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-29 11:06 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-10-28 15:08 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-28 07:49 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:36 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:53 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 21:55 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 19:02 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-28 08:56 +0100
Re: .5 against 0.5f Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-28 08:01 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:08 -0700
Re: .5 against 0.5f Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 22:00 -0500
Re: .5 against 0.5f Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 22:01 -0500
Re: .5 against 0.5f Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-31 02:16 -0400
Re: .5 against 0.5f fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 08:30 +0100
csiph-web