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	2017-05-04 13:07 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<oef1qr$4cc$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <36d67442-8861-41b5-b5b3-f71681740e59@googlegroups.com> <oe7ge5$p9u$1@dont-email.me> <935683a9-7c2e-4f71-adcc-998d8a7fe0b4@googlegroups.com> <lnvapkh1eb.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kZCOA.1178476$F83.296367@fx38.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/05/17 12:01, bartc wrote:
> On 01/05/2017 19:34, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>> But I am not an admirer of the built-in C type system. I would
>>> prefer something along the lines of
>>>     U0 : unsigned char
>>>     S0 : signed char
>>>     U1 : unsigned 16-bits
>>>     S1 : signed 16-bits
>>>     U2 : unsigned 32-bits
>>>     U3 : unsigned 64-bits
>>>     U4 : unsigned 128-bits
>>>         etc.
>>> and other names for things like 48-bit types.
>>
>> You can do that too if you insist.
> 
> U followed by a number n which is the width as 2**n is rather perverse.

The poster here seems to think that perverse is a good thing.  He has
also decided that the "for" syntax in C does not look like C, and so
when working with other people's code he first goes through it to
replace all for-loops with while-loops.

> U64 in that scheme would be an unsigned int so wide that most of the
> world's production of RAM chips would need to be commandeered just to
> have enough memory to store one number.
> 
> More common is U8, U16, U32, U64 (number of bits), or sometimes U1, U2,
> U4, U8 (number of bytes), although both sets confusingly have U8.

IME, specifying the bit size is a lot more common than giving the size
in bytes (though I agree that giving the size in bytes is more common
than the log2 of the size in bytes).

> 
>> What I strongly object to is your suggestion of defining a type "Int" as
>> an alias for "unsigned int".  That would be utterly misleading to any
>> reader who's familiar with C.
>>
>>> I know there are other versions of this stuff. Most of the
>>> others are hideous.
>>
>> I usually prefer to accept the language as it is rather than using
>> tricks to transform it into a style I prefer.  Such tricks require the
>> reader to understand both the underlying language and the dialect you've
>> invented.
> 
> The base language, as it is, requires you to use:
> 
>   unsigned long long int
> 
> for 64 bits unsigned. That's if you prefer to include the 'int'
> otherwise it looks a bit sloppy to declare a type using only modifiers
> and not the thing you're modifying.

Agreed.

> 
> C99 introduced the ability to write:
> 
>   uint64_t
> 
> but which requires you to then go to the top of the program and write:
> 
>   #include <stdint.h>
> 
> For short test programs, it be easier to just write 'unsigned long long
> int' rather than all that punctuation and jumping about.

"Jump about" ?  Any C file bigger than "Hello world" is going to have a
bunch of include's at the start, just following the file comments.  You
put #include <stdint.h> there, along with things like #include <stdbool.h>.

Then you use the standard type names when you want fixed size types.

Anything else for fixed size types is a relic from pre-C99 days.

> 
> It's not really surprising everyone makes up their own shortcuts!

No, not /everyone/ makes up their own shortcuts.  People used to make
them up before they were standardised, but I think very few people do so
now.  A small number of C programmers seem to think that names such as
"uint64_t" are ugly and that their own preference - u64, u64_t, uint64,
etc., is vastly superior.  But most people understand that uint64_t is
about as clear and concise as you can get, and the benefits of
standardised common names far outweighs minor personal preferences.

Pretty much the only time I see non-standard names for fixed size types
is in code that has a history stretching back before C99, and code
written by people who think "#define RTN return" is a good idea.

(Of course, lots of code is quite happy with "unsigned long long int"
rather than size specific types.)

> 
> (I don't like the idea of using 'unsigned' as a modifier rather than
> being a separate type. In one of my other languages I use:
> 
>  int        always signed (you don't have to scan left - or right -
>             to see if there's an unsigned lurking)
>  word       same width as int, always unsigned
> 
> and 'dint' and 'dword' as double width versions. Or int64, word64 etc
> for specific widths. When no one's looking, I might sometimes use i64 or
> u64. But all are built-in so there is never need to define your own
> aliases or to drag in stdint.h which is still too clumsy for many.)
> 

People who think "dragging in" a standard header is "too clumsy" should
look for a different profession or hobby.

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