Re: some well known stupidness in c99

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: some well known stupidness in c99
Date	2012-11-19 14:08 -0500
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<50AA83C2.9070006@verizon.net> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <Cydqs.418031$Tf3.217168@fx12.am4> <k8bpeq$h0m$1@dont-email.me> <QKeqs.444766$9D6.98494@fx27.am4> <k8dljp$db3$1@dont-email.me> <LRuqs.299317$nB6.281719@fx21.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/19/2012 01:25 PM, BartC wrote:
> "Eric Sosman" <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:k8dljp$db3$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 11/18/2012 7:04 PM, BartC wrote:
> 
>>> So when victim is compiled, it will use the current value of table_max
>>> in whichever file1 or file2 has been chosen. To create two programs with
>>> two different values of table_max, requires recompilation of victim in
>>> each case.
>>
>>     ... which was James' point: "Any language that allows you
>> to do this does not support true separate compilation."  If I
>> must recompile victim.c for each potential partner fileX.c, there
>> is no more separate compilation.
> 
> In your example, you were constructing two different programs: victim+file1, 
> or victim+file2.
> 
> You were deferring the selection of that companion file until 'link-time', 
> using a mechanism which I guess is not defined by the language.

Well, yes. Mechanisms are the domain of implementers, they are outside
the scope of the C standard. Consider files containing the following
lines, among others:

> 	/* file1.c */
> 	const int table_max = 100;
> 
> 	/* file2.c */
> 	const int table_max = 200;
> 
> 	/* victim.c */
> 	extern const int table_max;

The standard says the behavior is undefined if file1 and file2 are both
linked into the same program. Otherwise, if file1 and victim are linked
into a single strictly conforming program, the value of table_max in
that program must be 100. If file2 and victim are linked, it must be
200. The standard doesn't specify the mechanism used to achieve this,
but it does require that some mechanism be used to make it happen.

> In my example, I was suggesting that the selection was made at compile-time, 
> either victim+file1, or victim+file2 (with a mechanism not known to C 
> either). There isn't that much difference.

The difference is that C mandates the behavior we describe, regardless
of what mechanism is used to achieve it. To have the behavior occur at
compile time, as you described, file1.c or file2.c would have to be
#included into victim.c during the compilation phase, rather than linked
to it after compilation. As far as C is concerned, "victim.c + #included
file1.c" is one translation unit, and "victim.c + #included file2.c"
would be a different one.

Thread

some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 01:21 -0800
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-11-18 10:41 +0100
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 SG <sgesemann@gmail.invalid> - 2012-11-18 10:41 +0100
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 02:02 -0800
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 SG <sgesemann@gmail.invalid> - 2012-11-18 11:23 +0100
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 02:26 -0800
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-18 12:16 +0000
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 05:27 -0800
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-18 14:24 +0000
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 06:44 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 06:50 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 11:07 -0500
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-18 12:22 -0500
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 09:39 -0800
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-18 20:22 +0000
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 17:04 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-18 22:45 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-18 18:02 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 00:04 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 19:20 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 00:59 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 20:13 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 01:36 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 21:12 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 11:20 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 11:09 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 18:25 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 14:02 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 21:55 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 17:50 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 23:05 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 18:16 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-20 08:14 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 08:33 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 23:38 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-20 08:19 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 15:28 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 13:25 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 22:22 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 22:26 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 00:16 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-21 01:05 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 13:24 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 18:54 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 22:31 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 20:38 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-21 12:00 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 18:30 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-21 13:51 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-21 19:47 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 20:21 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-21 21:25 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 23:02 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 11:56 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 15:01 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 18:43 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-21 23:58 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 14:37 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-22 17:12 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-21 16:47 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-22 01:23 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-22 08:19 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-22 15:34 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 04:18 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-22 17:31 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 14:18 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-22 09:28 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 14:10 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-11-28 01:12 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-28 09:50 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 11:43 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 11:34 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-22 09:57 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 18:47 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-22 11:39 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 14:08 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 21:32 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 16:35 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 21:51 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 18:38 -0500
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 14:05 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 21:25 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 12:21 -0500
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 13:57 -0500
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-18 03:47 -0800
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 10:56 -0500
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 09:11 -0800
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-18 15:10 -0500
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 12:52 -0800
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 21:29 +0000
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2012-11-18 22:35 +0100
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-18 17:00 -0500
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-19 14:38 +1300
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 21:14 -0500
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-19 03:56 +0000
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-18 22:06 +0000
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-18 23:44 +0000
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 01:16 +0000
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-18 14:20 -0800
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 15:33 -0800
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 01:21 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 01:45 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 11:35 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 05:01 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 15:37 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 08:21 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 05:42 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 06:06 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 10:02 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 08:51 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 21:35 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 09:06 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 14:25 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 11:42 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 09:06 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 12:31 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 09:42 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 13:36 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-19 11:57 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 15:07 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 15:21 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 15:37 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-19 11:10 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 11:22 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 14:41 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-19 12:04 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 12:08 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 11:37 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 15:33 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 21:14 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 16:39 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 13:57 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 17:01 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-21 11:07 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 17:23 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 14:46 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-20 14:56 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 15:10 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-20 15:26 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 16:00 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-21 12:10 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 09:45 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-21 13:43 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2012-11-22 10:25 +0100
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 12:08 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2012-11-21 16:42 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-22 10:49 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 15:55 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 14:58 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-21 11:49 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-21 11:12 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 22:41 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 15:46 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 16:39 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-19 16:33 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 00:20 -0600
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 22:12 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 00:34 -0600
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 10:20 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 13:40 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 22:00 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 17:49 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 11:05 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 21:48 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 17:58 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 23:16 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-19 16:39 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 01:28 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-20 08:22 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 19:01 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 23:50 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 23:18 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 23:28 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 10:53 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 03:19 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 03:39 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-20 12:52 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 04:59 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 15:47 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 11:21 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 16:11 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 19:18 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 02:51 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-14 23:28 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-17 12:37 +0200
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-17 06:00 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-17 23:43 +0200
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 19:23 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-18 13:31 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 20:17 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-18 00:48 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-12-18 15:38 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-16 10:50 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-12-16 10:58 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-12-16 16:47 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 14:17 +0000
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 00:38 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 02:34 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-11-20 07:38 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 04:47 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 13:14 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 21:27 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 16:48 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 16:28 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-21 10:29 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-20 22:32 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 18:14 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-21 01:52 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 22:31 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-21 04:40 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-21 08:11 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 14:02 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 15:29 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 16:54 -0800
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 gof@somewhere.invalid (Adam Wysocki) - 2012-11-20 15:51 +0000
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 21:26 +0000
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-11-18 10:57 -0800
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-18 13:44 -0800
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2012-11-18 23:38 -0500
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-14 23:13 -0500
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Stanley Rice <heconghui@gmail.com> - 2012-11-27 17:22 -0800

csiph-web