Re: Generic function-calling code

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Generic function-calling code
Date	2015-09-03 13:19 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<ms9a80$cgi$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <6ed52afe-bef5-4b12-88e0-352c7137df7c@googlegroups.com> <MPG.3051994fc6a3969d55@news.eternal-september.org> <7cf0420f-e751-47ee-9463-945c32bc31d9@googlegroups.com> <ms9441$m61$1@dont-email.me> <ms96sr$d9$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/09/15 12:21, Bartc wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 10:34, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/09/15 10:26, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> 
>>> Based on the horrible design Microsoft chose, it
>>> seems like a valid reason for why they chose it.
>>> Remember it was a long time before Intel would
>>> capitulate to create their own x86-64 version.
> 
>> By putting the first four parameters into registers, they
>> could make small functions quite fast.  But by leaving space for those
>> registers on the stack, it would be easy to change code to put those
>> parameters onto the stack without disturbing anything else, and then you
>> could debug the code.
> 
> (It would be interesting to see figures as to how much difference in
> performance it actually makes to pass arguments in registers.
> 
> I've done some crude tests, such as using 'gcc -m64 -O0'. Although
> unoptimised, I assume it still uses the same Fastcall convention (even
> for non-global calls). Yet the results compared badly with a certain
> other compiler that I know doesn't use Fastcall and just pushes
> everything to the stack.)

I agree that a direct comparison would be needed to give a fair
judgement - as I noted in my reply to Rick, I don't think it makes a
particularly big difference.

You can't do sensible timed comparisons with -O0 on gcc, as it typically
gives very simplistic direct translation of the source code.  It is
often bigger and slower than code produced by other compilers even if
they too have optimisations disabled.  There is no independent or
absolute scale to optimisations - the flags are just a hint to the
compiler as to how hard it should work, and different compilers treat
them very differently.  In any speed comparisons, you either have to use
otherwise identical compilers or you have to ask the compilers for the
fastest code they can produce.

In this case, you would use a 64-bit Windows build of gcc compared to
the same version for 64-bit Linux, running on the same hardware (dual
boot, or both within the same sort of virtual machines).  It is
certainly possible to do, but I for one can't be bothered!

> 
>> AMD, on the other hand, wanted into the workstation market.  Their main
>> effort in developing x86-64 was in cooperation with *nix developers and
>> compiler developers for that market.  Thus they worked with folks like
>> IBM, the Linux kernel developers, SUSE, Red Hat, CodeSourcery, etc.
>> Their ABI - as used by everyone except Windows - is the System V ABI for
>> x86-64, targeted at *nix systems and made in cooperation with gcc and a
>> few other compiler developers for *nix.
>>
>>
>> So I don't think the Windows x86-64 ABI mistakes are the result of
>> conspiracies - merely a failure on MS' part to predict the future
>> accurately.
> 
> What's so terrible about the Windows ABI compared with System V?
> 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions#x86-64_calling_conventions>

The two key differences are that that with System V ABI, more registers
are used for passing parameters than in Windows ABI (this only affects
functions with more than 4 integer parameters or 4 floating point
parameters), and that the Windows ABI insists that the caller sets up a
32-byte "shadow space" on the stack that is reserved for copies of the
register parameters.

It is this shadow space that makes the real difference.  It means that a
function that calls other functions must always make a stack frame, even
if it doesn't need one otherwise.  It takes a couple of instructions to
reserve the space, and it means that you are wasting 32-bytes (plus
possibly another 8 bytes for storing the old stack pointer) for every
function call - with deep nesting, that's L1 cache pointlessly wasted.

But as I said, I don't know if it is a noticeable effect in real code.

Thread

Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-21 21:21 +0100
  Re: Generic function-calling code jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-07-21 23:04 +0200
    Re: Generic function-calling code luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 14:45 -0700
      Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 00:56 +0100
        Re: Generic function-calling code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-22 00:25 -0500
          Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 02:37 -0700
            Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 11:50 +0100
              Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 04:29 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 13:04 +0100
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 05:44 -0700
              AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-22 12:50 +0000
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 06:07 -0700
                Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-22 13:30 +0000
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 07:42 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-22 17:07 +0200
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 08:16 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-22 08:41 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-22 08:47 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 08:53 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-22 18:09 +0200
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 16:38 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-22 18:28 +0100
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-22 13:37 -0400
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-22 15:04 -0500
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:39 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-22 19:10 +0100
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 11:39 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-22 20:01 +0100
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 12:06 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-22 20:51 +0100
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2015-07-22 17:48 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 19:50 +0000
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 13:15 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-22 21:28 +0100
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 21:44 +0100
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-07-22 16:35 -0500
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 15:17 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-09-05 15:20 -0500
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 23:01 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 01:58 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 02:28 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 12:48 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 07:08 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-22 13:50 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 21:43 +0100
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2015-07-22 17:43 -0700
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-24 10:41 -0400
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-24 16:01 +0100
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-25 19:20 +0000
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 20:25 +0100
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-23 20:41 +0200
                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 12:00 -0700
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 17:43 +0100
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-22 19:36 +0000
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 23:19 +0100
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 15:43 -0700
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 23:47 +0100
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 04:44 -0700
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 13:14 +0100
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 06:26 -0700
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 15:00 +0100
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 07:13 -0700
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 18:02 +0100
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:05 -0700
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 18:19 +0100
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:37 -0700
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 23:29 +0100
                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-23 16:18 +0000
              Re: Generic function-calling code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-24 01:21 -0400
          Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 13:23 +0100
            Re: Generic function-calling code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-23 07:44 +1200
              Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 22:24 +0100
      Re: Generic function-calling code luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:29 -0700
      Re: Generic function-calling code luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:32 -0700
    Re: Generic function-calling code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-21 15:38 -0700
  Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 17:26 -0700
  Re: Generic function-calling code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-22 14:27 +1200
  Re: Generic function-calling code gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-22 02:39 +0000
  Re: Generic function-calling code Lőrinczy Zsigmond <zsiga@nospam.for.me> - 2015-07-23 09:28 +0200
  Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 19:04 -0700
  Re: Generic function-calling code owen.jacobson@grimoire.ca - 2015-07-24 08:32 -0700
    Re: Generic function-calling code gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-24 18:48 +0000
    Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-24 20:22 +0100
      Re: Generic function-calling code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-25 03:03 -0700
  Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 13:32 -0700
    Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-25 23:28 +0100
      Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 06:18 -0700
        Re: Generic function-calling code gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-26 13:39 +0000
          Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 07:33 -0700
            Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-26 16:21 +0100
              Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 08:39 -0700
  Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 05:37 -0700
    Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-26 14:36 +0100
      Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 06:46 -0700
        Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-26 16:11 +0100
          Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 08:20 -0700
  Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 16:53 -0700
    Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-28 01:03 +0100
      Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 05:36 -0700
        Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 06:35 -0700
          Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 06:43 -0700
          Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-30 15:10 +0100
            Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 08:59 -0700
              Re: Generic function-calling code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 10:54 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 10:57 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 11:13 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 11:16 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 11:59 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 12:15 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 12:57 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 13:40 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 11:15 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 11:28 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-30 20:11 +0100
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-30 22:28 +0200
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 01:13 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 00:40 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 01:26 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 11:34 +0200
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 03:15 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 03:21 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 13:07 +0200
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:30 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 13:39 +0200
                Re: Generic function-calling code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-03 07:20 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 20:25 +0200
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:30 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:44 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 11:21 +0100
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 13:19 +0200
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:51 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 14:31 +0200
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 05:57 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:56 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 14:53 +0200
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 06:08 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 15:18 +0200
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 06:30 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-03 10:09 -0500
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 08:59 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 08:37 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 08:31 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 09:07 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 20:42 +0200
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:49 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 08:25 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 16:46 +0100
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 09:02 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-04 04:04 +0000
                Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 00:36 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 16:29 +0100
                Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 08:45 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 22:33 +0200

csiph-web