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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #92071

Re: GCC vs Clang

From David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: GCC vs Clang
Date 2016-08-10 17:09 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <nofg2d$bjj$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (9 earlier) <yZamz.1131820$GD.1074203@fx33.am4> <add98d01-a1f0-4576-b3b1-8b830e5d7026@googlegroups.com> <noev9h$gg9$1@dont-email.me> <noevqs$ieo$1@dont-email.me> <nof8kg$hp2$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/08/16 15:01, BartC wrote:
> On 10/08/2016 11:31, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 10/08/16 11:22, BartC wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2016 01:00, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Install msys2.
>>>
>>> You don't need msys or msys2 or cygwin to run Clang on Windows. Clang
>>> just has a dependency on gcc which they don't bother to tell you about.
>>>
>>>> Then type 'pacman --needed -S clang'. Download size is 164 MB. Install
>>>> size is 689 MB.
>>>
>>> I've no idea what pacman is (apart from the game) or why it would be
>>> needed.
>>
>> Neither did I, but it took me less than 30 seconds to find out.
> 
> I spent rather more than 30 seconds (searching for 'pacman clang') and
> found references to it but no explanation. But doing it again, 'pacman'
> might be an abbreviation for 'package manager'. Perhaps something that
> does what apt-get does.

Here's a tip on googling.  You want to know what "pacman" is, so you
google "pacman".  After realising that the first hits are all for the
game, which is clearly not what you want, google for "pacman -game".
Once you eliminate the game-related results, the relevant "pacman" is at
the top - it is indeed an abbreviation for "package manager", and comes
from the Arch Linux distribution.  And it does indeed do a similar job
to apt.

> 
> Whatever it is, it's getting further and further away from the issue.
> 
> Anything to do with Linux stuff on Windows (within Linux itself even)
> always seems to end up the same way: you want to use A, but you need B,
> and that needs C, and then it is suggested you just acquire the entire
> alphabet.

But usually you just say "give me A" (via apt, pacman, whatever), and
Linux (or msys2, or cygwin, or FreeBSD, etc.) figures out that you need
B and C, downloads appropriate packages, configures and installs them
all, and you've got your "A" with a single command (or a single
selection from a nice convenient graphical package manager).

On Windows, you need to search for the right website that has "A".  Then
when you have found the download link, you need to pass through layers
of new sites called "download.com" or "getyoursoftwarehere.com", wading
through adverts and hoping that /this/ link is for the actual download,
and not another link to another intermediary site.  And you hope that
there is no malware along the way.

And then when you try to install "A", you have to choose the "advanced"
install options in order to avoid yet another copy of advertising
"toolbars" for your browser, or yet another "free" anti-virus tool, and
similar nonsense.  Then when you try to run it, despite it having vast
numbers of DLL's (most of which you already have from other programs, in
multiple copies), it turns out you are still missing some dotnet
package.  If you are lucky, you discover this by an informative error
message - if you are unlucky, you just get a meaningless crash and have
to google again to find out what it means.  Installing the dotnet
package is impossible until you have upgraded your install utility - and
upgrading your install utility is impossible until you have upgraded
your entire Windows OS, which will break other programs you need.


Sometimes installing programs on Windows is fine.  But sometimes it is
truly hell - vastly more time-consuming and inconvenient than on Linux.

The two OS's have different ways of doing certain things, and until you
realise and accept that, and stop trying to think of Linux as a
distorted Windows (or vice-versa), you are always going to have trouble.

> 
> It reminds me of nothing so much as the tootsie frootsie sketch in the
> Marx Brothers' 'A Day at the Races'.
>

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