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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #130276

Re: Global variables

From David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Global variables
Date 2018-05-06 23:09 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <pcnqus$u15$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (18 earlier) <ffEGC.34377$U32.22742@fx04.am4> <pch9jg$66e$1@dont-email.me> <M6DHC.72415$Ze.56654@fx39.am4> <pcngvl$oqf$1@dont-email.me> <IwIHC.237614$5v7.81786@fx02.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/05/18 21:16, bartc wrote:
> On 06/05/2018 19:19, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> 
>>> My linker complained about multiple definitions of variables.
>>
>>  From the Standard C standpoint, wouldn't that make your linker "wrong"?
> 
> 
> 
>> Historically, linkage editors assign the same storage location to 
>> multiple
>> storage definitions that have both the same name and size, and are
>> uninitialized. 

Yes, this is something linkers have traditionally done.  I am not sure, 
but I believe it is important for Fortran, and it was useful for 
assembly programmers too before C came along.  But it is not a 
requirement for C, and it is (IMHO) a misfeature for C because it adds 
nothing but makes it easier to make mistakes.

>> Additionally, (again historically) linkage editors 
>> defer to
>> the initialized storage definition if it exists.
>>
>> Here's where /your/ linker differs from both the historic norm, and the
>> requirements of the C language.

It differs from the historical norm, but not from the requirements of 
the C language.

>>
>>> But no other C compiler's linker said anything at all
>>
>> As would be expected.

It is expected, yes - but to me it is a disappointment.  I would prefer 
to see complaints from the linker, at least when warnings are enabled.

> 
> I expect that they all started by working sensibly, then had to adjust 
> to existing practice in order to be able to compile existing C which 
> doesn't follow the rules. (As far as I can see, 'extern' is never really 
> needed because there never seem to be any consequences of not using it.)

"Existing C" pre-dated the rules of C.  And the rules of C don't require 
common sections.  Fortran, which pre-dates C, /does/ have requirements 
for a common section.

"extern" is needed if you want to write correct code that works 
regardless of the details of the compiler and/or linker, or when people 
use options such as gcc's "-fno-common" to disable common sections (to 
aid spotting errors and to generate more efficient code).

> 
> Instead of non-static module variables in a C module, being in either 
> Initialised or Uninitialised sections (.data or .bss), C makes use of a 
> third category: Undefined [I think called .comm in gcc/asm files].

It is not "undefined" - it is "common".  (Note that the names of the 
sections are implementation specific, and not part of the C standards. 
What you give here, however, are common choices for the basic names.)

Static variables also go in .data or .bss (or something like .rodata or 
.const for const data) - they just don't have globally visible names.

> 
> This just sounds like more sloppiness in the language. 

It is not "sloppiness" - it is a design choice.  I don't agree that it 
is a /good/ choice, but it is a choice.

> This is how it 
> can be done according to the rules:
> 
> ======= Unexported Variable ======
> 
>          static int abc;         // in body of the module
> 
> ==================================
> 
> ======= Exported Variable ========
> 
>          extern int abc;         // probably in header
> 
>          int abc;                // in body of the module
> ==================================

Note that this "int abc;" is a tentative definition, and as long as no 
initialising definition is seen in the same compilation, it is 
considered (as far as the C standards are concerned) identical to "int 
abc = 0;".  C implementations are usually different - either putting in 
into a .common section (boo!) or a .bss section (yeah!).  The 
distinction between .data and .bss is for efficiency - at the start of 
the program runtime, the .data section is initialised by copying data 
from the fixed information (also containing the code and const data), 
while the .bss section is cleared to all zeros (usually by a fast loop).

> 
> ======= Imported Variable ========
> 
>          extern int abc;         // probably in header
> 
>                                  // not declared in body
> ==================================
> 
> ======= Exported, Initialised ====
> 
>          extern int abc;         // probably in header
> 
>          int abc = 1234;         // in body of the module
> ==================================

Yes.  That is all fine, and that is the way (IMHO) it should be done.

> 
> There is no need for tentative definitions, certainly not ones that are
> still tentative at the end of the source file. 

There are no definitions that are still tentative at the end of the 
source file - they are, as far as C is concerned, treated as "= 0" 
initialisations.  Even when compilers put them in common sections, they 
are not really tentative.

> (Neither is there any 
> need for more than two declarations of a variable; it seems 1000 
> declarations are fine.)

I am happy with a declaration in the header, and a definition in the 
implementation file.  It is very rare that I need to do something else 
there.  But C is quite happy with duplicate declarations as long as they 
are compatible.

> 
> And therefore there is no need for compilers and linkers to pander to 
> the sloppiness. Especially as the more they do so, the more every new 
> compiler and linker needs to do the same.
> 

I agree with you that the "common symbol" system is a bad idea, 
unnecessary for C and can lead to errors.  What I don't agree with is 
that it is a feature of linkers made to handle C or C code - this is 
manifestly wrong as it predates C, is needed for Fortran and is useful 
for assembly (at least the way some people like to write their 
assembly).  You are also wrong in suggesting that C requires it - it 
does not.  Some C code requires it, but the language itself does not.

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

Thread

The case AGAINST C Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2018-04-30 02:10 +0000
  Re: The case AGAINST C cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2018-04-30 03:14 +0000
    Re: The case AGAINST C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-30 05:48 -0700
    Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 14:58 +0100
    Re: The case AGAINST C Davs <johndemeert0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 04:18 -0700
      Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 05:26 -0700
      Re: The case AGAINST C Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-07 11:21 -0400
        Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 09:21 -0700
        Re: The case AGAINST C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 12:13 -0500
          Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 10:24 -0700
          Re: The case AGAINST C Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-07 13:27 -0400
            Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-07 17:33 +0000
              Re: The case AGAINST C Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-07 13:50 -0400
              Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 10:56 -0700
            Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 09:26 +0200
          Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 09:19 +0200
            Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 00:42 -0700
            Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 06:54 -0700
              Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 07:24 -0700
              Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 17:15 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 09:31 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 18:48 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 10:33 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 23:36 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 15:08 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 00:56 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 16:17 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-08 11:09 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 23:43 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 15:24 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 00:58 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-09 08:11 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 08:51 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 11:45 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 13:03 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 23:40 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-09 15:48 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-10 13:48 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-10 08:28 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-11 10:06 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 02:22 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 05:29 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-11 13:31 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-11 15:47 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-11 09:16 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-12 17:43 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-12 14:06 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 00:13 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 01:31 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-11 18:01 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:30 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-09 09:29 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:41 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 04:43 -0700
              Re: The case AGAINST C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-08 21:24 -0400
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 09:10 +0200
            Re: The case AGAINST C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-08 19:52 +0000
              Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 23:48 +0200
  Re: The case AGAINST C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-29 22:07 -0700
  Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 12:22 +0100
    Re: The case AGAINST C Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-30 12:08 +0000
      Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 13:38 +0100
        Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 06:05 -0700
        Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-30 07:39 -0700
        Re: The case AGAINST C Ed Kellett <e@kellett.im> - 2018-04-30 15:53 +0100
          Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-30 08:14 -0700
            Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 21:26 -0700
          Re: The case AGAINST C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 09:00 -0700
            Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 04:58 -0700
          Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 18:07 +0100
            Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 05:33 -0700
              Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 05:58 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 06:27 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 14:37 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 13:41 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 16:48 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:11 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 11:00 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 19:26 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-01 11:40 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 12:53 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 22:03 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-02 09:10 +1200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-01 14:21 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-02 09:26 +1200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-01 15:23 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-02 14:07 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-03 06:28 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 23:03 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 04:52 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 05:12 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 05:34 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-02 14:08 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 07:39 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 17:13 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 11:01 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 21:51 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 08:52 +1200
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 22:42 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 09:57 +1200
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 23:22 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:29 +1200
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 00:14 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 03:59 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 04:15 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 12:50 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 13:36 -0700
                Of course I get it... (Was: The case AGAINST C) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-05-03 08:44 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 12:42 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 05:52 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 12:56 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 05:58 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 14:36 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-03 13:27 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 22:43 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-03 15:17 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 00:50 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 15:41 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 11:36 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:52 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 17:28 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 12:06 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-05 18:45 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-06 18:43 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:35 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-07 13:23 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 06:30 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-07 16:25 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:32 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 09:09 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 18:12 +0100
                Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 14:07 +0100
                Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 20:03 +0200
                Re: Global variables Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-06 15:21 -0400
                Re: Global variables Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 13:07 -0700
                Re: Global variables Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-06 16:13 -0400
                Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:39 +0200
                Re: Global variables Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 17:50 -0400
                Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:57 +0200
                Re: Global variables Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 19:56 -0400
                Re: Global variables Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-05-07 03:21 +0100
                Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-07 09:09 +0200
                Re: Global variables Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-07 08:49 -0700
                Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 20:55 +0100
                Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:51 +0200
                Re: Global variables Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 15:40 -0700
                Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 23:54 +0100
                Re: Global variables Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 15:12 +1200
                Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-07 09:03 +0200
                Re: Global variables Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-05-18 20:23 -0700
                Re: Global variables Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 20:44 -0700
                Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-19 17:22 +0200
                Re: Global variables supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-19 11:56 -0700
                Re: Global variables supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-06 16:28 -0700
                Re: Global variables Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-06 14:19 -0400
                Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 20:16 +0100
                Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:09 +0200
                Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 23:41 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-03 09:13 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 17:29 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-05-03 19:24 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-04 05:46 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 10:55 +0000
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 04:03 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 12:31 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 05:10 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 13:24 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 06:26 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 06:35 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 07:06 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 07:19 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 06:37 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:19 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 12:07 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 16:31 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:41 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 09:50 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 10:04 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 13:51 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 14:30 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:14 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:18 -0500
                Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 09:05 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 17:55 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 10:54 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 19:18 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 11:24 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 16:45 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-05-04 11:51 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 12:15 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 21:56 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 17:01 +0200
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 17:54 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 13:38 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 21:49 +0100
                Re: The case AGAINST C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 17:19 -0400
                Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 15:24 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 15:16 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 23:55 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:59 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 14:51 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 04:46 -0700
                Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 11:45 -0700
              Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 06:10 -0700
        Re: The case AGAINST C C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> - 2018-05-02 15:23 +0100
          Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 17:36 +0100
  Re: The case AGAINST C "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 22:03 +0800
  Re: The case AGAINST C Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2018-05-01 13:46 +0000

csiph-web