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	2017-05-08 22:46 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<oeql9k$ee3$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(18 earlier) <bb59791b-4d14-4bec-9620-bf0baa46a1ee@googlegroups.com> <oepum7$nsq$1@dont-email.me> <b5c7a57a-b04f-499f-bf83-7fbf2f3b4254@googlegroups.com> <oeqg73$rf8$1@dont-email.me> <23b594ae-2310-4bde-bf19-b56ddad92115@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 08/05/17 22:07, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 2:20:23 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> Yes, it is unusual.  The code is wrong - it is incorrect C.  Maybe you
>> are used to writing such code, but /I/ certainly am not.
>
> So how would you write code that needs to efficiently read and write data
> of arbitrary type on a 32-bit CPU?

I don't read and write data of arbitrary types - I /know/ what types I use.

> Would you use memcpy to copy the data
> to a non-qualified uint32_t[] [hopefully using 32-bit operations] so that
> you could then copy it from there to a uint32_t volatile[], or would you
> use a loop to memcpy groups of four bytes to a uint32_t that could be written
> to a uint32_t volatile[], or what?

There is no answer to a question like that (except perhaps "what"), 
since it will depend on the circumstances.  Maybe I will use transfers 
that I know are valid on the compiler in question even if they are not 
guaranteed by the standards.  Maybe I will use memcpy.  Maybe I will use 
unions.  Maybe memcpy, but with extensions (like gcc attributes) to 
ensure the compiler knows the alignments of the pointers involved, and 
can generate more efficient transfers.

In most cases, I won't /care/ - because the reason I am passing such 
data around is because it will be transferred by a UART running at 19200 
baud, and it does not matter if the buffer is available a microsecond 
earlier or later.  What matters is that the code is clear and correct.

>
>> When you have something like a communications buffer that you want to
>> fill, then write to another volatile "trigger" to send the data out (or
>> to read in new data), the most common technique is simply to declare
>> that buffer as volatile.  This may be marginally pessimistic, but only
>> marginally so - usually your code reads or writes the data once, and it
>> makes little difference if those accesses are volatile or not.  More
>> sophisticated programmers might leave the buffers non-volatile and use
>> memory barriers to enforce ordering - in complex situations on more
>> modern devices, such as cpus with cache and an external DMA, you may
>> need extra flushes or other cpu instructions to enforce the order correctly.
>
> What's pessimistic is *needing* to use a specially-allocated communications
> buffer in cases where the storage which holds the data won't be needed by
> the main-line until after the outside process has finished using it.  Many
> communications APIs feature asynchronous "beginRead" and "beginWrite"
> operations which can be used with "ordinary" storage, provided that code
> doesn't try to do anything with the storage in question until after the
> asynchronous operations have completed.
>
>> What you don't do is use plain accesses and /hope/ that the compiler
>> will do what you want.
>
> Some compilers, including any that use the 5.1.2.3p.9 semantics, will work

What part of the word "example" is causing you problems here?  And on 
the one hand you are obsessing about irrelevant run-time efficiency, 
while simultaneously extolling the benefits of compilers that will be 
extremely slow and inefficient.

> as indicated even though they lack any kind of memory-barrier directives
> since they don't need them.

Your original point was about "multi-core or out-of-order execution CPUs 
with weak memory models" - you /do/ need memory barrier directives 
(which until C11 were outside the scope of C) regardless of the compiler.

>
>>> In the days before "volatile", such code would simply work but compilers
>>> had to do all memory accesses in order.
>>
>> I don't know when "volatile" came into use, but it is in the C89
>> standard.  Previous to that, you would be relying on
>> implementation-dependent behaviour for /all/ accesses and ordering.  But
>> that's okay, as C was designed to allow that.
>
> Before the late 1980s, many compilers simply performed all reads and writes
> in the order given.

In the dark ages, compilers did not have many optimisations.  We know that.

> The "volatile" keyword was added to make it possible
> for compilers to perform optimizations without making the language unsuitable
> for systems-programming use.  If it *wasn't* intended to eliminate the need
> for compiler-specific directives on the kinds of platforms that existed in
> the late 1980s (which, incidentally, are very much like low-end platforms
> today) why bother with it at all?

Again, you equate "I can't think why this is not the case" with "clearly 
it /is/ the case".  I wish you would stop doing that - you cannot use 
your ignorance or lack of imagination as "proof" that your ideas are 
correct.

I was not involved in the decision making process of the C standards 
committee in the late 1980's.  I don't know what they were thinking. 
All I can see is what the standards say.  And from what they say, 
"volatile" is a useful tool for controlling the order of specific 
accesses in a C program - but it does not control non-volatile accesses. 
  If you want to control the ordering of accesses, you either make them 
all explicitly volatile, or you use implementation-specific methods.  So 
I would guess "volatile" was added as a helpful common tool, not a 
replacement for implementation details.

>
>> And anyway, what does this have to do with gcc /today/ ?  Sometimes I
>> imagine you sitting on the porch on your rocking chair, telling tall
>> tales to your grandchildren about the days of your youth, when compilers
>> were /real/ compilers and programmers were /real/ programmers.
>
> I would suggest that a compiler which can't perform some task as cleanly
> and straightforwardly as a 5.1.2.3p9 compiler shouldn't be regarded as
> particularly suitable for that task.

Perhaps it is not suitable as a compiler for /you/.  Let other people 
use tools that work for /them/.  In the meantime, I recommend you keep 
your gcc settings on "-fno-strict-alias -fwrapv" and avoid optimisation 
(certainly nothing above -O1), just in case the scary compiler does 
something different from a tool from 40 years ago.

>
>> And if the programmer knows all this stuff, then he should /certainly/
>> be aware of implementation-dependent behaviour of the compiler - and use
>> it to get the effects needed!
>
> Is there any reason that code which needs to do something that any compiler
> which is remotely suitable for systems programming must be capable of doing
> (flushing all register-cached variables and creating a barrier to load/store
> re-ordering) in order to handle external function calls, should need to use
> compiler-specific directives for that purpose?

Yes.  (The reasons are too obvious to bother explaining.)

>
> If there existed a directive which said "do everything that would be
> necessary before calling an opaque external function, but feel free to
> omit the call itself", then it would make sense to deprecate any code
> which fails to use such a directive in cases where its semantics would be
> required.  No such directive exists, however.

That makes no sense.

>
>>> Do you consider it plausible that the authors of the Standard intended that
>>> implementations interpret the Standard so as to require the use of more
>>> compiler-specific directives than would have been necessary previously?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Interesting.  I would have thought such an outcome would have been contrary
> to the whole purpose of trying to write a standard in the first place.
>

You asked if I considered it plausible.  I said yes.  You are very fond 
of sophistry, but it is not really a helpful technique in such a discussion.

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) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-15 08:28 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 19:21 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-16 08:24 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-17 11:25 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-17 10:14 -0700
                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) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-15 17:44 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-15 17:47 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-16 12:07 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-16 15:28 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-16 15:52 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-17 15:49 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-17 16:36 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-19 14:53 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-18 06:17 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-18 07:51 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 22:28 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-19 00:30 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-24 14:51 -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