Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #91169

Re: GCC vs Clang

From David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: GCC vs Clang
Date 2016-07-27 20:42 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <nnavap$nr5$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (8 earlier) <nn6ron$bd5$2@dont-email.me> <lnpoq0bzo3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <5798ceed.3489562@news.xs4all.nl> <lnshuv9gy4.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <lnh9bb9flx.fsf@kst-u.example.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 27/07/16 19:04, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> [...]
>> It is unfortunate that the compiler and the runtime library did not
>> agree on the representation of long double.  There is a workaround:
>> defining the macro "__USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO" as 1 before including
>> <stdio.h> causes it to use a different implementation of stdio.
>> (I don't know whether this applies to the long double functions
>> declared in <math.h> and <stdlib.h>.)
> [...]
>
> It occurs to me that configuring gcc to use the Windows native
> representation for long double would have been a better solution.
> gcc even has command line options that controls the size of
> long double.
>
> Perhaps the MinGW developers had (or thought they had) good reasons not
> to do that.
>

It is possible that they wanted to make the compiler compatible with 
other libraries (though I fully agree that the native format for the 
target platform would be the best default choice).

In general, the separation of the compiler and the library makes it much 
easier to mix and match compiler and library.  This is perhaps not a 
common thing, though I have done so myself on a few occasions.

There is also the point that the folks writing a C library need to know 
a good deal about the target platform and OS (for hosted 
implementations).  The folks writing the compiler don't need to know 
anything about system calls, OS character encodings, etc.  Also, a C 
library for an OS can also be used as the base for a Fortran library, a 
Pascal library, etc. - keeping it a separate project has advantages for 
such code sharing.

I also agree with Richard that having a single combined implementation 
from a single source can be more convenient and less error-prone than 
having them entirely separate.  But it is usually sufficient that the 
different development groups cooperate, and that someone does the 
high-level package management to make life easier for the users.  (The 
same applies to things like the assembler and linker as well as the 
library.)

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

GCC vs Clang The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> - 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000
  Re: GCC vs Clang Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-07-22 20:17 +0200
  Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 21:09 +0200
    Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:22 -0700
      Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:20 +0200
        Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:56 -0700
        Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-22 15:27 -0700
        Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 00:59 -0700
          Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 20:33 +0200
          Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:18 -0700
            Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 12:54 -0700
              Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 13:48 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 22:54 +0200
                Killfiles: Learn how they work.  They are your friend!  (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-07-23 21:14 +0000
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:10 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 05:20 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 15:43 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 07:09 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 22:08 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:21 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 14:38 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 09:30 -0500
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:41 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:33 +0200
        Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 07:46 -0700
        Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:02 -0400
        Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:00 -0700
          Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:25 -0700
  Re: GCC vs Clang Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2016-07-22 20:42 +0000
    Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:09 +0200
      Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:50 -0400
    Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-23 19:53 +0100
      Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:50 +0000
      Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:07 -0400
        Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 17:16 +0100
          Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 07:27 +0000
            Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 08:29 +0100
          Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:29 -0400
    Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:44 -0700
  Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 22:18 +0100
    Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:43 -0700
      Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-23 00:02 +0200
        Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:20 -0700
          Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:34 +0200
            Re: GCC vs Clang Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-10 02:18 -0700
          Re: GCC vs Clang cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-08-10 15:31 +0000
    Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:31 +0200
      Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:14 +0100
        Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:57 +0200
          Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:24 +0100
          Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 15:29 -0700
            Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 16:00 -0700
              Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 16:31 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 17:06 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-26 07:52 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 08:20 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:23 +1200
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:17 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:56 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:17 +0000
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 09:36 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 10:04 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-27 20:42 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:29 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 12:08 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:43 +0000
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:32 +1200
                Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 13:23 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 17:13 +1200
              Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:10 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:19 +1200
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 08:28 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:53 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-26 02:04 -0700
        Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 08:41 -0700
          Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:37 +0100
            Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 12:07 -0700
            Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-25 22:57 +0200
              Re: GCC vs Clang? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-26 14:08 +0200
              Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:18 +0000
                Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-27 22:01 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-28 09:56 +0000
            Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:38 -0400
            Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:38 +1200
              Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:54 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:16 +1200
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 23:55 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 07:20 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
                Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:47 +0000
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
                Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:00 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> - 2016-08-09 21:15 -0400
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:42 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-10 12:52 +0000
                Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 06:59 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 16:52 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 11:22 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-10 11:31 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 14:01 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 07:12 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 17:09 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:40 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 09:55 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 22:51 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:36 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 17:52 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 11:49 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 20:28 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 13:06 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-08-10 18:14 -0400
                Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 21:53 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 10:35 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 11:00 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 09:36 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 18:54 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:11 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 20:42 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 19:53 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:41 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 20:21 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:11 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 21:46 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 20:49 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:57 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 23:10 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 09:07 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 13:47 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 16:29 -0400
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 23:00 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:04 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:11 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 15:29 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 18:13 -0400
                Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-15 00:14 -0700
                Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 08:04 +0000
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 01:15 -0700
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 07:27 -0600
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 15:00 +0100
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 10:29 -0400
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 10:22 -0500
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-15 17:46 +0200
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 17:41 +0100
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-15 09:47 -0700
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 11:11 -0600
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 13:28 -0400
                Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:05 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:52 -0700
                Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 18:00 +0000
                Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:34 -0700
                Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:48 -0700
                Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:56 -0700
                Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:10 -0700
                Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:18 -0700
                Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 08:44 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 09:38 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-17 08:24 +0000
                Re: GCC vs Clang Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-17 17:44 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-15 17:25 +1200
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:09 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:16 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:28 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:30 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:16 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 07:28 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-14 18:05 +0000
                Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-14 20:18 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 11:54 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:05 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 21:16 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:37 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 20:59 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:48 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:58 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:53 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-14 11:34 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:07 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-14 12:36 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 14:03 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-15 09:48 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:46 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:45 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:11 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:06 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-11 15:16 -0400
                Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:02 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:20 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:58 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 17:05 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-11 23:24 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:58 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 16:08 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 00:21 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 17:29 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:23 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 11:43 +0100
                Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-13 08:37 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 13:58 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-11 16:28 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-12 01:12 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-12 20:15 +1200
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:29 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-12 12:45 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-12 04:30 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:09 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 14:49 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:00 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 15:03 +0200
                Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:22 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 09:14 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 10:23 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 11:29 -0700
                Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:19 -0700
    Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:53 -0400
  Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:55 +0000
  Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700

csiph-web