Re: some well known stupidness in c99

From	glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: some well known stupidness in c99
Date	2012-11-19 21:32 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<k8e8h1$mnp$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <k8bpeq$h0m$1@dont-email.me> <QKeqs.444766$9D6.98494@fx27.am4> <k8dljp$db3$1@dont-email.me> <LRuqs.299317$nB6.281719@fx21.am4> <50AA83C2.9070006@verizon.net>

Show all headers | View raw

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

(snip)
>> 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;

Before there was C, there was Fortran and BLOCK DATA, which requires
a similar implementation. So, linkers would already know how to do
this even if implemented before C existed.

The OS/360 linker, for example, takes the first CSECT that it finds
if there are duplicates. That allows for the actual editing in the
name linkage editor. If you need to replace one CSECT in a previously
compiled and linked program, load the new one in, then INCLUDE the
old load module. The linkage editor keeps the new CSECT in place of
the old one with the same name, updates all the address constants,
and everything works.
 
> 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.

Or a fancier linker than we usually have.

-- glen

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