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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #108398

Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised)

From David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised)
Date 2017-04-24 13:23 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <odkn2a$bj1$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <odf2pf$dd0$1@dont-email.me> <58fb2265.5246218@news.xs4all.nl> <EEFKA.484957$fL.133530@fx24.am4> <odk4og$jtv$1@dont-email.me> <4QjLA.892339$fZ.804703@fx41.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

On 24/04/17 11:46, bartc wrote:
> On 24/04/2017 07:11, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
>> On 4/22/2017 2:47 AM, bartc wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's not a compiler failure - the code is broken. Signed integer
>>>> overflow has undefined behaviour, and therefore, gcc is allowed to
>>>> assume that it doesn't ever happen. It's allowed to do so because, when
>>>> it _does_ happen, any result is allowed, including pretending that it
>>>> didn't happen.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, it desirable to have consistent behaviour across
>>> optimisation levels.
>>> ...
>>
>> That makes no sense whatsoever.
>>
>> Undefined behavior is unstable by definition. But abstract theoretical
>> considerations aside, optimization level would be one obvious
>> down-to-Earth practical factor that always can (and will) "destabilize"
>> manifestations of undefined behavior. After all, this is the very reason
>> we have undefined behavior in language spec.
>>
>> So, no, when it comes to undefined behavior consistency across
>> optimization levels is not even remotely desirable.
> 
> 
> You write a program P and send it as C source code to someone else to
> work on a certain platform.
> 
> You don't want to give instructions as to what compiler to use or what
> optimisations they should be applying. Maybe it's a module that is to be
> part of a bigger program, which uses its own uniform set of options.
> 
> This is why it must not matter what optimisations are applied.

Agreed.  (Well, I agree that it generally should not matter what
optimisations are applied as far as the correctness of the code is
concerned.  And the ability to distribute the C source without detailed
compilation requirements is one of many reasons for that.)

> 
> Here, signed overflow /may/ be a bug in the program, or it may be by
> design.

If it is by design, then the designer is buggy :-)

In C, signed overflow is /always/ a mistake.  There are no circumstances
in standard C programming in which it is not an error.

You may have reason to program in an extended dialect of C in which you
want signed overflow to have a specific behaviour - typically two's
complement wraparound, but possibly saturating arithmetic or run-time
traps or signals.  That's also fine - but then you are not coding in
standard C.  You are coding in "gcc C with -fwrapv" or something
similar.  And you need to specify such details with your code, because
you are /not/ distributing "C source code" any more.

> If P is designed to run on the vast range of hardware where
> signed overflows just wrap around, then it doesn't matter; the behaviour
> will be consistent, for same width of 'int' at least.

That argument would have merit if you were talking about a language that
defines signed integer arithmetic in terms of the underlying hardware.
C does not do that.

Different languages have different ways of defining (or leaving
undefined) the behaviour of impossible or meaningless actions.  If we
assume 16-bit int (because the numbers are easier), and have x = 32767,
then what should be the result of adding 1 to x?  Standard mathematics
says it should be 32768, and anything else is wrong.  Typical processors
say it should be -32768, because that is the easiest in the hardware
design.  Some algorithms would much prefer 32767, because saturation is
"less wrong" than anything else.  Some algorithms would prefer a NaN
type indicator, or jumping to some error routine.

C says "Adding 1 to x here is meaningless.  There is no behaviour which
can be called 'correct'.  So we don't give it a meaning.  The compiler
can assume it never happens, if that lets it generate more efficient
code for correct cases".

> 
> Until C decides to intervene and decides it should matter, and changes
> the behaviour.
> 

You have got that ass-backwards.  C decides /not/ to intervene, decides
it does /not/ matter, ans says there is no behaviour to change.

> (Take the 8-bit value 01111111 which is +127 when interpreted as signed.
> Now increment it, which doesn't have signed/unsigned variations on most
> hardware. You will get 10000000, which is -128 on two's complement
> hardware (pretty much every machine). It just wraps.
> 
> Yet C has a problem with this.

No, C has no problem with this - /you/, and a few other equally mistaken
programmers, have problems with it.  You appear to believe that C is not
a programming language, but merely a kind of high level assembly - and
you are wrong.  C is not, and never has been, a high level assembler or
semi-portable assembler.

> 
> And ironically, if you start with the 8-bit value 11111111, which is -1
> signed, and increment that, you get zero (not unexpectedly), Yet here,
> the hardware operation /will/ genuinely have overflowed - there will
> have been a carry bit generated intended for the ninth bit of the result.)
> 

The hardware details are irrelevant (which is good, because you are
wrong to generalise - on some systems, the extra carry bit is never
generated as there is no logic for it at all.  And on many other
processors, it is usually immediately ignored and not available to the
programmer).

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

Thread

gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 09:06 +0100
  Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2017-04-22 09:49 +0100
    Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 10:52 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 11:37 +0100
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:07 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-24 08:33 -0700
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 22:32 +0100
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 14:53 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 07:00 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:19 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 11:30 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-22 16:12 +0200
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:16 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-23 05:41 -0500
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-23 14:14 -0700
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-24 04:04 -0500
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:22 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-24 12:05 -0400
            Re: gcc rules OK (optimised/non-optimised) "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-24 17:06 -0400
              Re: gcc rules OK (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-24 15:06 -0700
    Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 21:31 +0000
  Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 09:29 +0000
    Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-22 10:47 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 11:36 +0100
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-04-22 13:50 +0000
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-22 15:35 +0100
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:36 +0100
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-24 08:37 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-25 11:07 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-25 11:57 -0700
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:34 +0100
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-24 11:25 +0200
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:57 -0700
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:38 -0700
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 22:38 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-22 08:35 -0700
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-22 17:16 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-22 18:55 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-22 21:04 +0200
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-22 21:51 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-22 14:56 -0700
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-30 16:49 +0200
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-30 16:02 +0100
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-30 11:51 -0500
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-30 21:42 +0200
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-30 17:35 +0100
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-30 11:57 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-30 18:44 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 11:34 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 12:03 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:30 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-30 21:18 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:33 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-01 16:27 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 10:16 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-01 11:34 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 12:43 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-03 12:54 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 17:49 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-03 18:05 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 20:37 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 10:22 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-04 11:01 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:18 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-04 11:55 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:14 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-04 09:34 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 10:09 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-04 18:25 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-04 11:28 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 11:53 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-04 13:07 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-04 14:19 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-04 16:44 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:09 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:17 +1200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-04 22:26 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:38 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-04 22:49 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 19:58 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 10:32 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 12:53 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 13:51 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:58 +1200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 14:45 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 06:41 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-05 10:40 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-06 13:21 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-06 11:26 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-06 22:52 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-07 19:01 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 11:09 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-07 19:48 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 11:17 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 06:36 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 16:21 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 09:16 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 21:20 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 13:07 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 22:46 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 14:38 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-08 21:16 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 15:09 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-08 15:14 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 15:43 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-08 16:56 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-08 16:57 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 17:27 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-08 17:41 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-09 06:16 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-09 12:11 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-10 09:58 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 09:40 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-10 12:05 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-09 13:55 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-09 09:26 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-09 13:56 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-09 14:19 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 14:22 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 09:26 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-10 17:36 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 01:12 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 21:15 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 10:41 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-11 15:32 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-12 01:54 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-12 07:45 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-12 23:52 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 12:57 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-10 21:56 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 10:45 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-11 14:43 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:55 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 07:30 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-12 09:02 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:14 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 16:04 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-10 17:33 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-09 13:51 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-09 09:14 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-08 21:07 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 18:30 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 10:44 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 10:42 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-05 14:10 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 17:12 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-04 15:08 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-04 12:24 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-04 18:29 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-04 18:07 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 20:15 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 15:47 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 01:22 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 18:57 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 09:30 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 01:25 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 10:33 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 10:10 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 12:49 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-05 18:31 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-05-05 22:18 -0600
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-07 23:58 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 07:33 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 13:04 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 07:51 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 19:01 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-09 06:39 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-10 06:42 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 10:53 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-05 00:33 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 10:54 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:31 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-04 12:27 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 02:10 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 22:56 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:00 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-04 15:15 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 14:06 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 00:43 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 13:31 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-01 21:52 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 23:16 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-02 09:19 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-30 17:28 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-01 13:12 +0000
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-30 22:23 +0200
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-30 10:08 -0700
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-30 22:32 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 13:59 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-30 17:47 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 21:49 -0700
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 11:24 -0700
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 12:45 -0700
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-23 23:11 -0700
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-24 10:46 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-24 13:23 +0200
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-24 15:38 +0100
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-24 17:31 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-24 17:15 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-24 10:36 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-24 12:06 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-24 14:03 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-25 11:09 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-24 10:25 -0700
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-04-27 05:51 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-01 09:08 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-01 10:48 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-01 11:39 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-05-01 13:54 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 08:55 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 12:18 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 11:03 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 13:13 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-01 19:47 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-01 18:51 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 14:06 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-01 21:05 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 16:06 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 14:19 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-01 08:41 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-10 10:07 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 08:44 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-01 09:03 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 09:51 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-01 11:30 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 11:41 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-01 11:51 -0700
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-24 08:51 -0700
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-24 12:13 -0700
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-01 09:11 +0000
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 14:04 -0700
    Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 10:57 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 11:38 +0100
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-04-22 13:43 +0000
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 18:22 +0100
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-04-22 17:48 +0000
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-22 14:24 -0700
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 03:03 -0700
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-27 10:12 -0400
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 21:48 +0000
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 10:14 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-24 10:33 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-24 13:32 +0200
  Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-24 13:47 +0000
  Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-26 08:53 +0200

csiph-web