Re: Preprocessor Overheads

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Preprocessor Overheads
Date	2017-02-02 10:30 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<o6uu5g$2ff$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<o6acmh$pcd$1@dont-email.me> <o6fo9r$i9v$1@dont-email.me> <kfnmve5d7im.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <o6tv8g$mb5$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 02/02/17 01:43, BartC wrote:
> On 01/02/2017 19:40, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 
>>> https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/clex/clex.c
> 
>> The -Wuninitialized diagnostics:
>>
>>     fixed-up-clex.c: In function 'lexreadtoken':
>> ...
> 
> OK, well maybe I should apologise for leaving so much junk in that
> source code (but I did warn about it). Most of these functions are not
> used in this app, and might be left over from previous bits of code that
> are in the middle of being overhauled.
> 
> The one above /is/ used, although the code in question is for error
> handling.
> 
> As for other warnings, I believe this code compiles clean using:
> 
>   gcc -c clex.c
> 
> under Windows. (Under Linux, there are extra print format-mismatch
> errors that I'll come to later.)
> 
> With gcc -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic -c clex.c, I got 900 lines of
> warnings. A few of these I've taken care of by putting extra casts via
> the translator (I don't want to clutter the original source).
> 
> But many are proving difficult to eliminate:
> 
> (1) Unused variables, functions/labels defined but not used.
> 
> In development code, there are lots of bits of code that are temporarily
> commented out, or are only there while debugging.
> 
> Commenting out some lines may mean there are apparently orphan functions
> that aren't called or variables not used.

Since this C code is generated rather than hand-written, can't the
generator be improved to omit things that are never used?  And if you
didn't have a habit of declaring all your variables at the start of
functions, you'd find far fewer of them being unused.

-Wunused is a useful warning for most people because normally people
only put useful things in their code - an unused variable or label is a
likely indication of an error.  They do turn up a bit during
development, but not /that/ much IME.

However, if your code generator makes lots of unnecessary identifiers of
various sorts, use -Wno-unused to suppress the warning while keeping
-Wall -Wextra.

> 
> (2) Printing pointer values.
> 
> Presumably this is what "%p" is for. But apparently %p should only be
> used for void* types, so requiring a cast in most cases. (I've got my
> translator to add such a cast, but that won't work where I directly call
> a printf-family function, so I have clutter my source code with
> pointless casts.)

Those pesky rules of C, eh?  Who would have thought you needed a cast to
void* just because the standards say so?

> 
> (3) Printing 64-bit values.
> 
> This one I don't understand:
> 
>    #include <stdio.h>
>    #include <stdint.h>
>    ...
>    int64_t aa = 0;
>    printf("%lld\n", aa);
> 
> gcc gives me:  "warning: unknown conversion type character 'l' in
> format". 

Either you are requesting a standard older than C99, or you are using a
Windows gcc build that uses MSVC's C runtime library (with older C90
printf) rather than a build that uses a more modern runtime library, and
gcc is smart enough to know this.  I suspect the former - gcc prior to
version 5 (IIRC) used -std=gnu90 as the default if you had not specified
a standard.

So use -std=c99, -std=c11, -std=gnu99 or -std=gnu11 according to taste.

Note that "gnu90" standard allows some use of C99 features as an
extension, which is why you might not have noticed which standard you
had picked (or left as default).  The default is designed to be
convenient rather than strict.

> If I change it to "%ld", I now get:
> 
> "format '%ld' expects argument of type 'long int', but argument 2 has
> type 'int64_t {aka long long int}'"

That seems a perfectly reasonable warning, and states the situation
accurately.

> 
> "%d" doesn't work either. What the hell print format do you have to use
> for int64_t?!

In C90, there is /no/ format specifier for long long int, as there is no
long long int.  (But gcc might allow it as an extension in gnu90 mode.)
 If size_t is 64 bits, then %z should work - but that will not be the
case with -m32.

> Meanwhile, if I compile the %lld on Linux, I get:
> 
> "format ‘%lld’ expects argument of type ‘long long int’, but argument 2
> has type ‘int64_t {aka long int}". (That is, one long not two.)

"long long int" and "long int" are two different types, even when they
have the same size and representation.  Whether you consider that a
"feature" of C, or a "quirk" of C, depends on your usage.  <inttypes.h>
has macros such as PRId64 to deal with that - on Windows, it would
expand to "%lld" and on Linux it would be "%ld".

> 
> At least gcc on Linux can be shut up by using "%ld". But what format to
> use that works on Windows, and works also on Linux for the same type,
> int64_t?

PRId64 - that's what that macro is for.  (Section 7.8.1 in C11 standards.)

> 
> 
> (4) 'Too many arguments for format'
> 
> This one line:
> 
>          printf("%lld%s",l.value," ");
> 
> generates 3 warnings:
> 
>  "warning: unknown conversion type character 'l' in format"
>  "warning: format '%s' expects argument of type 'char *', but argument
>     2 has type 'int64 {aka long long int}"
>  "warning: too many arguments for format"
> 
> l.value has int64_t type. What's it moaning about here?

The format specifier "%lld" is ignored (by the static error checker -
the actual run-time code will pass it on to the library printf function)
because it is invalid in your current compiler mode, generating the
first warning.  So the format checker sees just one specifier "%s",
followed by two arguments of type int64 and then char*.  Appropriate
warnings are then given.

> 
> 
> (5) Suggesting parentheses:
> 
> If I mix && and ||, I get this warning:
> 
>   "warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||'"
> 

Yes, these are excellent warnings because it is very easy to get the
precedences wrong, either when writing the code, or when trying to
understand code written by other people.  So for code you write
yourself, or code you expect other people to read, it is a good idea to
include the extra parentheses.

> It's my translator that suppresses the parentheses because it
> understands C precedences. So adding them in the original source
> wouldn't work (and I don't want them as I understand 'and' and 'or'
> precedences).

If you want people to read the generated code, put those parentheses in
the generated code.

If you don't want anyone to read it, use the -Wno-parentheses flag to
suppress that warning.

> 
> I also get it for:
> 
>   "warning: suggest parentheses around '+' inside '<<'"
> 

Same as above.

> (6) Zero-length arrays
> 
> This is an error not a warning, but I think it came about while I was
> trying to suppress a warning (to do with using {} for initialising I
> think):
> 
>    int data[];            // or:
>    int data[] = {};
> 
> Apparently this is a no-no. But sometimes this is exactly what you want,
> for example when you have a set of such arrays, some may be filled, some
> could be empty waiting to be set up at some later date or by someone
> else. But in the meantime, it won't compile.

zero-length arrays are not valid in C, so don't try to make them.  You
can't declare an array of one length (zero or anything else) and then
"set it up" later with a different size.  Whatever you think your code
is doing here, it is not doing it - it is broken.

> 
> (7) Converting between void* and function pointers.
> 
> This seems to be frowned upon. But it's difficult to add a cast, when
> there are multiple pointers that must all be coerced to the same time,
> where the functions are all mixed types. (I think Tim has done something
> to fix that, but whatever it is, I don't think I can do the same. Nor do
> I want the clutter.)

Again, if you want to use C, follow the rules of C.  Tim gave a
suggestion - if you don't like it, find a different method.

And this is /generated/ code.  It should not be difficult for the code
generator to add casts as necessary - there is no problem with "clutter"
in code that you are not writing by hand or expecting people to read.

> 
> Is it any wonder that I usually suppress warnings so that I don't see
> them? Anyway, there will be a few less now.
> 

Given that all these issues can be dealt with sensibly, and some of them
are clear indications of incorrect code and not just stylistic issues,
yes, it is a wonder.  It is especially a "wonder" since many of these
are just simple standard C.

Is it a wonder that /you/ suppress warnings rather than trying to
understand what they mean and why they might be indications that there
are problems (or at least "opportunities for improvement") in your code?
 No, it is par for the course for the way you code and the way you
assume that any issues in your programming are the result of bad design
of the C language rather than your own errors or misunderstandings.

Thread

Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-25 14:30 +0000
  Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-27 15:18 +0000
    Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-01 11:40 -0800
      Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-01 21:35 +0100
        Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-01 21:02 +0000
          Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 00:35 -0600
          Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-02 09:00 +0100
            Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 16:41 -0600
              Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 00:11 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 00:56 -0600
      Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-01 20:49 +0000
      Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 00:43 +0000
        Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-01 17:36 -0800
        Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-01 17:50 -0800
        Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-01 18:09 -0800
        Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-02 10:30 +0100
          Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 12:13 +0000
            Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-02 13:53 +0100
              Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 13:14 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-02 14:42 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 15:25 +0000
            Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 10:19 -0800
              Re: Preprocessor Overheads Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-02-02 22:59 +0100
            Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-03 06:02 -0800
              Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 14:29 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-04 10:00 -0800
              Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 08:54 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-04 10:03 -0800
          Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 10:15 -0800
            Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 19:29 +0000
              Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 08:32 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 20:44 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 13:06 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 21:51 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 14:16 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 15:17 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 00:16 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 01:09 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 01:04 -0600
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 11:34 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 14:54 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 15:31 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 19:32 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 20:28 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 12:44 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 21:33 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 16:19 -0600
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 22:46 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 17:47 -0600
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 13:26 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 01:08 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 18:09 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 12:14 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-04 17:01 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 18:20 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 20:40 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 00:08 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 21:10 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 00:21 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-05 11:51 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 04:34 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 09:26 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-05 21:02 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-05 22:39 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 00:21 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:10 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 01:55 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-06 00:57 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 14:08 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 09:32 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-06 12:22 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-06 04:40 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 14:04 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-06 06:08 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 15:42 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-06 08:10 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-07 09:57 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-07 11:26 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-06 10:36 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:27 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-04 20:35 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-05 21:16 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 00:51 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 01:20 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 01:48 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 02:10 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-04 02:56 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-05 01:56 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 11:14 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 12:00 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 12:16 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 13:41 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 14:00 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-04 07:55 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-02-04 18:15 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-05 21:41 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 16:36 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads bart4858@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 11:24 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 21:08 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-04 13:41 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-04 14:26 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 23:27 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-05 00:18 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-04 19:56 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-05 11:01 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 04:04 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-05 14:03 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 06:56 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-05 09:01 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-05 20:53 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 13:34 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 11:15 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 14:30 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 14:39 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 14:58 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-05 15:23 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 15:40 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-05 15:05 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:22 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-09 07:48 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:15 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 08:05 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-06 00:08 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 21:20 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 04:08 -0600
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 02:40 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-09 09:27 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-09 18:04 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-05 18:07 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-05 21:55 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-05 23:07 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 01:02 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 22:07 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 11:25 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 04:26 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 12:36 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 04:59 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 13:09 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 05:24 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 13:41 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 08:29 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:00 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 09:24 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 18:31 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-06 10:55 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-06 03:02 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 19:55 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 20:11 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:30 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 18:00 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 21:27 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 21:35 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-06 10:53 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 14:06 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-06 05:22 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 14:49 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-06 05:59 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-06 14:12 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-06 06:13 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 15:22 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-06 15:27 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-06 15:10 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-06 14:55 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 16:57 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 21:17 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 20:20 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 21:29 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 21:03 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 22:33 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 13:29 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-04 04:19 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 15:18 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-03 21:17 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 13:39 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-03 23:38 +0000
                Re: printing int64_t objects Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-02-02 23:40 +0100
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 20:20 +1300
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 19:52 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 14:03 +1300
              Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-02 14:13 -0800
          Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 12:08 -0800
            Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-02 21:45 +0100
              Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 15:35 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 15:56 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 16:23 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-03 12:23 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 20:51 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-03 14:16 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 22:47 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-03 16:38 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-04 00:47 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 18:34 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-04 11:02 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-04 13:18 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-02-04 21:27 +0000
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-04 10:04 -0800
            Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 12:46 -0800
              Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 14:12 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 15:21 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 16:02 -0800
                Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 16:13 -0800
        Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-02 14:16 -0800
          Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 05:03 -0800
            Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 16:41 -0600
              Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 16:15 -0800
            Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-04 10:13 -0800

csiph-web