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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #152372

Re: pure C90 environment

Show all headers | View raw

On 19/05/2020 14:09, Paul Edwards wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 21:00:51 UTC+10, David Brown  wrote:
> 
>>> I am not aware of any portable languages that were standardized by
>>> ISO at the time that C90 was published, and are superior to C90. An
>>> enormous amount of effort has gone into C90, allowing high
>>> performance I/O to be done on both mainframe and PC with the same
>>> source code.
>>
>> Add enough conditions to your requirements, and you will end up with
>> only C90 fitting.
> 
> It's not just my requirements. 

I mean your requirement for the language to pick for your project.  That
is entirely /your/ requirements.

> 
>> It seems to me you are fine-tuning your question once
>> you have decided on the answer you want.
> 
> I was there in 1990 and there was no
> competitor to C for developing
> low-level code.

Even if that is true, we are no longer in 1990.

> 
>> (Throughout this post, I am trying to make you think about what you are
>> doing, and consider the implications.  Explaining things to someone else
>> forces you to form a better understanding yourself.
> 
> Sure. Thanks for teasing it out. As I have
> already admitted, I only have a vague
> sense of what I am trying to achieve.

That is the bit I am trying to help with - my hope is that by answering
the points I pose here, you might get a better idea of the project for
yourself.

> 
>>> I agree with that, but it's still the fact that you need to learn C90
>>> to get your ticket to the world.
>>
>> Nonsense.
> 
> Nope. It's the one language you can code
> in to have your code work everywhere.
> 

Again, nonsense.  Your claim here is completely different from your
previous claim, and they are both nonsense.

Let me elaborate a little.

First, you said you "need to learn C90 to get your ticket to the world".
 Most programmers never learn C90, and do fine.  Most /C/ programmers
never really learn C90, and do fine - it is a long time since it was
common for programs and programmers to be limited to C90.  (It is still
found in a few specific circumstances.)  Very few people would ever
choose C90 if they can work with C99 - or at least a partial C99 support
(like MSVC has had until recently).

Thus the idea that programmers need to learn C90 is nonsense.

Next, you said that C90 is the "one language you can code in to have
your code work everywhere".  This is wrong in both senses.  There are
other languages that are portable to a range of systems (Java and Python
are two examples).  They won't work on such small systems as C, but are
/hugely/ better for portability in many kinds of programming as they
abstract OS features like networking, files, threads, graphics, etc.
Secondly, as I have pointed out many times, using C90 does not make code
portable - almost all real-world programs are at least somewhat system
dependent.  Pure standard-only C90 is simply not enough to be useful.

>>> Because C90 hasn't been done to my satisfaction yet.
>>
>> C90 is a language, and has been implemented on a huge variety of
>> systems.  What aspect of it "has not been done yet" as far as you are
>> concerned?
> 
> The GCCMVS port, which is used by some people,
> does not call IKJPARS to retrieve the file
> prefix, preventing a longer prefix from
> being provided by MVS/380. That's just one
> example.

That makes no sense to me - like most people, I am not familiar with the
details of mainframe systems that were outdated 30 years ago.

> Another example is SDCC not
> supporting the "double" type. It was only
> very recently that SDCC supported structure
> assignment.

I /still/ don't understand your complaints.  You seem to be saying that
these are two examples of C compilers (or C implementations - you are a
little loose on the details here) that are not fully C90 standard
compliant, or that don't have all the features you want.

Are you bothered because there are some compilers that say they are C90
compilers but aren't fully conforming?  I can think of many "C"
compilers that are far further from being conforming than SDCC.

Or are you bothered that there are some platforms for which there are no
good C90 compilers?  Again, there are many targets for which that is the
case - many for which there is much less hope of a good C90 compiler
than for the targets of SDCC.

People don't need or want full C90 implementations for these sorts of
systems.  No one (rounded to the nearest handful of people) cares about
new tools for a long outdated language for a long outdated OS on long
outdated hardware.  (They do care that existing tools and software
continue to run on existing hardware, but that's a different matter.)
No one much cares about 64-bit doubles on SDCC's targets - they know
that it would be borderline insane to write code that uses them.

> 
>> And it doesn't actually matter if you have C90 on everything from an
>> 8051 to an IBM mainframe when there are no useful programs that can be
>> run on both systems.  In particular, you will never have a useful C90
>> compiler that can be compiled and hosted on anything targeted by SDCC.
> 
> I don't have a requirement for a C90
> compiler to be *hosted* on a Z80, only
> that it be *targetable*. I think it is
> valid that GCC is a 3 MB module, as that
> is what is required to do all the desired
> optimization without kludging.

Why a Z80?  Why do you care that C runs on that chip?  It was nice in
its day, but that was long ago.  What about, for example, AVR Tiny
devices?  These are used /now/, and you can compile code for them with
gcc - but it will not be fully conforming (when you have an 8-bit device
with 64 bytes ram, you don't worry about 64-bit doubles).  What about
Atmel MARC4 chips or EPSON S1C6x devices?  These were made in their
billions, but never had a C compiler.

> 
>> I am asking /you/.  I know why the BSD and GPL fans (at least, the
>> informed ones - some people pick those licenses without thinking) pick
>> the licenses they do.  I am asking /you/ what /you/ think people can do
>> with your code if you release it as "public domain", that they could not
>> do if it were released under a BSD or GPL type of license.  What do you
>> think people will want to do with it?  What do /you/ want them to do
>> with it?
> 
> I want commercial operations to be able to
> pick up the code and write closed-source
> proprietary versions of the software which
> they can sell, with reduced input costs.

They can do that if you use a BSD license.  MacOS, for example, is fully
closed source and the kernel is a copy of the BSD-licensed FreeBSD.

Often, companies will blankly refuse to make use of public domain code
because its source cannot be traced - they never know if they have a
right to use it, or if someone will make legal claims against them.  And
in some countries the concept simply doesn't make sense, because you
cannot disclaim your rights and therefore you can't have software that
is not copyrighted.

It would seem that again, you are stuck 30 years in the past.

> I've described it more here:
> 
> https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/pdpgoal.txt
> 
>> Do you mind that they can do things that you /don't/ want them
>> to be able to do?
> 
> There is nothing that I don't want them to do.

So you are fine that others claim credit for your work?

> 
>> Possession is nine tenths of the law.  If someone takes your public
>> domain code and puts their own copyright on it, they can happily say in
>> court that you threw it away as worthless, and gave up all your rights
>> to it.  "Moral rights" are irrelevant.
> 
> I *did* give up all my rights to it - to the
> public. It's not worthless, it's gifted to
> the public. That's what public domain means.
> 

Not exactly, no.  I recommend you talk to someone who knows a little of
the law here before you do something you might regret.  (And before this
gets too off-topic for this group.)  You are very much mixing up usage
rights and ownership rights.

>>> GCC 3.2.3 is a 3 MB executable. I expect this to be able to run,
>>> instead of having kludges to squeeze a sub-standard compiler on to 
>>> inappropriate hardware. So to me, the world begins with 32-bit
>>> processors.
>>
>> Right.  So SDCC and other small-system embedded compilers /are/
>> irrelevant to you.
> 
> So long as they are hosted on 32-bit systems,
> they are not irrelevant.
> 
>> As are lots of other C90 compilers and targets -
>> including perfectly good working C90 compilers for 16-bit systems like DOS.
> 
> I don't have a requirement that people use
> kludges to fit their compilers into 16 bits.
> 
>> It is quite reasonable for a modern system to put 32-bit as the lowest
>> requirement.  But I question putting the 80386 as the lowest requirement
>> - that is an arbitrary choice that is long outdated.  If you had said
>> 32-bit ARM or 32-bit RISC-V, it would have made more sense, as those are
>> architectures that are important today.
> 
> I want to be able to run on a PC that has
> been booted from USB stick. It is the PC
> that is ubiquitous.
> 
>>> The world has moved on with fads, without first securing C90, in my
>>> opinion.
>>
>> As before, I do not understand what you mean by that.  And as well as
>> trying to explain what "securing C90" means, try to explain why it matters.
> 
> It is a house built on sand in my opinion.
> The public doesn't own the means to process
> C code. It's all copyrighted by various
> people. We're still many decades from the
> work transitioning into the public domain,
> which happens for a reason.

Basically, you are trying to say is that you think there should be some
sort of C90 compiler that runs on a PC, where the compiler code is
"public domain" (a term that I don't believe you fully understand) ?
And this compiler, or set of compilers, should be able to generate code
for 80386, Z80A, and some dead mainframe?

> 
> I can remember a comment from someone that
> there should be a special clause for software,
> that it should enter the public domain after
> 10 years, because anything more than that
> and it may as well be forever.
> 
>> The world /does/ move on.  History can be interesting, and backwards
>> compatibility is important, but trying to re-create the past is rarely
>> useful.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm recreating the past. I'm trying
> to secure a particular level of technology with
> a public domain implementation. And it needs to
> be something that is achievable by me in my
> lifetime. I can't spend thousands of man-years
> to reimplement Windows 10. But a 32-bit version
> of MSDOS is achievable.
> 

There are plenty of OS's available, with source code and licenses that
let people use them, modify them, distribute them, commercialise them,
as they want.  There are even some that are public domain, like TempleOS.

Write your own OS if you like - I am sure it will be a fun challenge.
But don't make the mistake of thinking it is something the world needs.

>>>> If you want that, then C (C90 or otherwise) is not the language for
>>>> you. It is a high level language, and is far from assembler.
>>>
>>> Sorry for my poor English.
>>
>> You are Australian, is that right?
> 
> Yes, I just meant my English was poor in that
> one sentence, not in general.
> 
>>> I think we should be aiming for efficiency.
>>
>> I think you should forget about efficiency.  It is contrary to your
>> other goals.  If people want to generate efficient object code, they
>> should not be using an ancient compiler with an outdated language - they
>> should be using a modern compiler with a modern language.  You are not
>> going to write a C90 compiler that fits on all your systems and
>> generates 80386 code that comes close to what can be achieved with C99
>> on gcc 10 or the latest clang, tuned for a modern processor.
> 
> First I want to actually have a public domain
> implementation of a C compiler. Then I want
> to make it more efficient, including being
> able *as an option* to target a modern processor,
> as well as the 6502 etc.
> 
>>> Ok, but I want to be able to describe 80386SX processors so that the
>>> hardware guys with the valves know what to be working towards.
>>
>> /Please/ don't!  The 80386SX is a crap architecture extended in
>> inconsistent and inefficient ways and then cut down again in different
>> ways.  It is /horrible/ for implementing.
>>
>> If you want to pick an architecture that is well-suited to C, is 32-bit,
>> and can be implemented relatively easily in a variety of ways, then
>> RISC-V is probably the best choice.
> 
> Ok. Thanks for the pointer. But I still want
> to finish implementing the 80386 and S/3X0
> and probably ARM before porting to RISC-V.
> I want to be able to get a job on any of
> these popular platforms and be able to take
> my toolkit with me. I know what it is like
> turning up to a new job and not having a
> C compiler available and having to write
> in assembler instead. I'm not asking for
> the latest greatest fad. I'm just asking
> for C90 to be made available everywhere.
> I don't think that is too much to ask for.
> It is the standard language for computers,
> since 1990.
> 

I can't imagine many jobs in programming now where you would be asked
to, or even allowed to, program in C90.  (Such jobs exist, but they are
rare.)  There would be even fewer where it would be acceptable to use
your own home-made compiler - certainly not for anything on x86,
mainframes or ARM devices.

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

Thread

pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-01 22:19 -0700
  Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 01:24 -0700
    Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 01:56 -0700
      Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:06 -0700
        Re: pure C90 environment shi84516584@gmail.com - 2020-05-19 17:53 -0700
      Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:07 -0700
        Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:23 -0700
          Re: pure C90 environment shi84516584@gmail.com - 2020-05-19 17:55 -0700
  Re: pure C90 environment Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-02 11:05 +0200
    Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:14 -0700
      Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-03 22:33 +0000
        Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 16:18 -0700
          Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-04 00:35 +0000
            Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 17:54 -0700
              Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 18:38 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 18:51 -0700
              Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-04 09:36 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 08:48 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 01:12 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-04 15:16 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 06:21 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-04 15:40 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 07:12 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 14:47 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 07:08 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 08:12 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2020-05-05 11:36 -0500
                Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 11:25 -0400
                Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 11:39 -0400
                Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 08:45 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 17:43 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 12:35 -0400
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 20:14 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 14:42 -0400
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 12:11 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 21:46 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 13:11 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 14:39 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 13:24 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-20 09:26 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 21:11 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 18:51 -0400
                Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 23:26 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-20 09:33 +0200
              Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 11:49 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 04:00 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 17:58 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 10:18 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 13:57 -0700
    Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 12:11 +0200
      Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 11:26 +0100
        Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 13:06 +0200
          Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 04:26 -0700
            Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 04:53 -0700
              Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 16:21 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 11:20 -0700
            Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 16:20 +0200
              Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 07:33 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 16:35 +0200
              Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 17:30 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 18:37 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 18:18 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 19:25 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 19:25 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-02 22:45 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 23:29 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-03 03:55 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-03 13:07 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 05:24 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 05:26 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-03 14:27 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-03 22:38 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-03 22:06 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 00:28 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 02:16 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-05-03 16:23 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 16:41 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 16:59 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-05-04 11:01 -0700
  Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 11:13 +0100
    Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 03:53 -0700
      Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 05:14 -0700
      Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 06:30 -0700
  Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 12:49 -0700
  Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-13 03:01 -0700
    Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-13 14:43 +0000
      Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 06:30 -0700
    Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 05:41 -0700
      Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 13:02 -0700
        Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-17 22:47 +0200
          Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 14:03 -0700
            Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-18 08:54 +0200
              Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 06:11 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 06:51 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 07:12 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-18 15:47 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-18 16:25 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 07:41 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-18 17:32 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-18 17:09 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 08:52 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-18 17:05 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 09:18 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:55 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-19 01:42 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 20:35 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:12 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 10:02 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 17:42 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 18:16 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:00 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 05:09 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 15:20 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 08:18 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 17:58 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 10:45 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 19:31 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 11:58 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 20:44 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 13:03 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 22:34 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 15:41 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 00:03 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 16:10 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 01:46 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 22:49 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 11:26 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 04:43 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 16:40 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 23:11 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 11:40 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 05:48 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 06:19 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 16:38 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 09:15 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 09:37 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 10:43 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-05-20 10:58 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 11:36 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 12:37 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 17:43 -0800
                Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 17:58 -0800
                Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 18:03 -0800
                Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 18:29 -0800
                Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 19:54 -0800
                Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:01 -0800
                Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:04 -0800
                Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 21:07 -0800
                Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 23:10 -0800
                Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 01:21 -0800
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-03-11 15:26 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 17:18 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 09:52 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 17:39 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:17 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-19 22:54 +0100
                Re: pure C90 environment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-05-20 10:17 +1200
                Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-19 16:28 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 17:30 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-19 19:39 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 15:12 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:51 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 13:02 -0700
              Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-18 15:52 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-18 17:15 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 20:10 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 13:18 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 23:21 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:21 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:12 +0200
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:21 +0000
              Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:48 +0000
          Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:47 +0000
            Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:23 +0200
        Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 13:54 -0700
          Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 16:45 -0700
            Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 17:27 -0700
              Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 14:44 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 08:17 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 21:39 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 21:58 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 16:40 -0700
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 00:22 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 00:27 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:10 +0000
                Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 14:59 -0700
          Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 20:01 +0000
        Re: pure C90 environment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-05-18 13:25 +1200

csiph-web