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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #92191

Re: GCC vs Clang

From David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: GCC vs Clang
Date 2016-08-12 15:03 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <nokheo$oaa$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (10 earlier) <u9ppqb5m4fs5596s3vffoeihor08qcl192@4ax.com> <7ed4b3db-62d1-4613-ab0a-84c7f921334c@googlegroups.com> <bd0rqblo10ujb41utg6i9srb8j4sgfdibg@4ax.com> <nok8f1$quv$1@dont-email.me> <a2c288b5-6b9a-410d-acef-637f6ea2ec6d@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/08/16 14:00, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 1:30:00 PM UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
>> On 12/08/16 10:12, Geoff wrote:
<snip>
>>> At least Bart and I can agree on the stupid waste of space the
>>> suite can be.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes.  But that's not new in the Windows world - it's just the way 
>> Windows works.
> 
> No, it's not how Windows works. It's how Windows is sometimes
> mistreated by developers that have main focus on other platforms.
> 

Yes, it is the way the Windows ecosystem works.  It is not the way it
/has/ to work (I've now learned that the OS itself supports links
properly), but it is the way it /does/ work.  Look in the directories
for any reasonably large program on Windows - it will contain dozens of
DLLs, many of which are exactly the same as other copies of the same DLL
in other program directories.  The Windows Way is to provide multiple
copies of the same files, libraries, or systems, rather than to have a
common source and shared versions.  (To be fair, it is better than the
old Windows Way, which was that each program installation copied its
DLLs into the Windows system directories with a total disregard for what
might have been there before, including incompatible versions with the
same filename.)

I think it is reasonable to argue that the reason Windows software is
like this is mainly historical, and developments such as links and even
long file names should make it entirely feasible to have a more
efficient system such as commonly found on *nix.

But it takes time to change that sort of thing, especially when MS
themselves are one of the worst sinners in this regard.  It is (almost)
only developers who have their main focus on other platforms that would
even consider using links or shared libraries.  Of course, some Windows
users are going to be upset if they see installation instructions such
as "first make sure you have the GTK libraries installed before
installing this program".

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