Re: The case AGAINST C

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: The case AGAINST C
Date	2018-05-12 17:43 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<pd7229$6pp$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <def828c7-d81a-44d6-9937-25b214695377@googlegroups.com> <pd1bi6$kp9$1@dont-email.me> <6858b426-49ee-419a-b4f5-072fb118aecf@googlegroups.com> <pd3iv0$n3l$1@dont-email.me> <7543bdfc-7cac-4c4e-87ed-5e489c6092ef@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/05/18 18:16, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 3:07:08 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> On 10/05/18 17:28, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
>>> I'm well aware that watchdogs are not a panacea, can easily mask problems
>>> that would otherwise be found and fixed, but on some occasions can create
>>> problems of their own.  On the other hand, they can also provide a very
>>> cost-effective way of reducing the probability of certain catastrophic
>>> failures.  If the cost of an otherwise-avoidable system restart is $1,
>>> and the cost of having a system inoperable until someone visits it is
>>> $100, a watchdog which can turn 95% of the latter into the former will
>>> offer more benefit than reducing the likelihood of what would otherwise
>>> be a catastrophic failure by 90%.
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes numbers like this work out - and a watchdog makes sense.  More
>> often, it looks like they are working out during early tests and
>> roll-outs.  Then you discover that the watchdog was merely covering up
>> for a serious problem - because if a watchdog ever triggers, there is a
>> /real/ problem underneath.  And suddenly you find that instead of
>> sending $100 visits to some of the 50 test customers, you are doing a
>> recall and sending $100 visits plus $100 replacements plus $xxxx lost
>> reputation to your 10,000 real customers.
> 
> If watchdog restarts are reported and recognized as suggesting issues that
> need to be addressed, the watchdog would be more likely to reveal problems
> than cover them up (e.g. if closing a switch will cause software to freeze
> until the switch is released, and if nothing requiring attention happens to
> occur when the switch is closed, the problem might go unnoticed in the
> absence of a watchdog, but if the watchdog fires while the switch is closed
> that could call attention to the issue).
> 
>> However, I think this is perhaps enough about watchdog pros and cons for
>> c.l.c.  If you want to discuss it more, perhaps comp.arch.embedded is
>> more appropriate.
>>
>>> My original point, though, was that some of the issues you were complaining
>>> about are what I would consider good characteristics for a watchdog.
>>
>> I don't understand.  My complaint was about toolchains not zeroing
>> uninitialised statically allocated data.  No characteristics of
>> watchdogs (other than the most basic functionality of simple watchdogs)
>> was discussed.  I can't see a connection.
> 
> Was it not you who made a comment about how the need for pre-main() code was
> to handle annoying watchdog designs that get activated by hardware rather
> than software?

Ah, I see what you mean now.  Yes, I made that comment.  But it was from 
the other viewpoint - pre-main() code early in the C startup is one way 
to solve the problem with having overly enthusiastic watchdogs enabled 
from reset in the hardware.  A better way is not to build devices like 
that in the first place, and a reasonable solution is that the toolchain 
already disables the watchdog without needing programmer effort.

> 
>> However, the C startup code, and the types of initialisation or hardware
>> setup needed, and the places they would be needed, varies enormously
>> from system to system.  This makes any kind of standardisation very
>> difficult - it would quickly be extremely complicated, full of options
>> and variations, and therefore pretty useless as standardisation.
> 
> What is difficult about having two functions before main()--one of them
> after the "initialization" of static const objects and one after the
> initialization of other objects that have initializers, with an implication
> that quality implementations should call those functions as early as
> possible subject to those constraints?
> 
> For what usage scenarios would those be insufficient?

There can be more than one memory area in a device - some of which may 
need extra initialisation (like external dram).  You may need extra 
initialisation before reading constants for initialising data segments. 
You might have separate boot rooms and main startup code.  You might 
want caches enabled before startup routines - you might want them 
disabled until /after/ startup.  The same goes for clocks or 
oscillators.  You might want to control the order of certain startup 
code.  You might want to start up additional cores early, you might want 
to keep running a single core for a while.  I am sure there are many 
more possibilities.

This would be far too much complication and overhead on a small and 
simple device - but a simple solution would not be sufficient on a more 
advanced device.  I don't think there is a good general solution here.

And of course it is many decades too late to try to standardise anything 
here - it would be different from the methods currently used, at least 
in some details, and therefore different from what toolchains currently 
provide and what existing code currently requires.

> 
>>> Incidentally, were I in charge of the Standard, I would provide an explicit
>>> intrinsic to perform static initialization, and also allow define optional
>>> features to report the address of the start of static storage, the size of
>>> static storage, and on some platforms treat all but one static object as
>>> being members of a structure pointed to by that remaining object.
>>>
>>
>> I am glad you are not in charge of the standard.  This sort of thing
>> would either be too restrictive to be useful on many systems, or too
>> flexible and optional to provide any portability.
> 
> Making features optional would mean that they need not impair the design
> of systems that cannot practically support them.  Code that relies upon
> such features would not be useful on systems that cannot practically
> support them, but that doesn't mean that such code shouldn't be portable
> among those systems that do.  Code which can provide enhanced functionality
> when such features are available, but work without them, should be portable
> to both kinds of systems, but be able to benefit from the extra features
> on those systems where they exist.
>

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