Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation
Date	2022-04-04 19:11 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<t2f8sl$62t$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <f606600a-d75b-438c-8671-0cadd35bb2d9n@googlegroups.com> <t2e55d$920$1@dont-email.me> <567bd57a-021d-469b-a12b-d4c1371b97d3n@googlegroups.com> <t2ekpd$qpk$1@dont-email.me> <36efdae0-f340-4958-b082-bd4932e87e15n@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/04/2022 15:01, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 12:29:00 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>> On 04/04/2022 11:07, Malcolm McLean wrote: 
>>
>>> Generally the processors primitive operations will wrap two's complement 
>>> arithmetic. So to raise a signal on overflow is more expensive rather 
>>> than less expensive.
>> "Generally" means "not always". For the very simple case of adding two 
>> numbers, wrapping is typically as efficient as UB on overflow. 
>> (Remember that wrapping is a perfectly acceptable "implementation" of 
>> UB.) Once you start including comparisons, or mixing types of different 
>> sizes, it is not always as simple.
>>
> If you wrap, you do not raise a signal. Generally this is cheaper than raising
> a signal because wrapping requires less circuitry than detecting overflow
> and raising  a signal. You've got it the wrong way round. Now if I was 
> arrongant and patronising like you, I'd say something arrrogant and
> patronising at this point.  

I don't think I am being "arrogant and patronising" - I am saying I
think you are showing a poor attitude to the importance of correct code,
are mistaken in what you consider to be possible consequences of certain
types of mistakes, and wrong about what might or might not be more
efficient in code generation.

Would it be "patronising" to point out that I said "Once you start
including comparisons, or mixing types of different sizes, it is not
always as simple", so discussions of the circuits used for an addition
are irrelevant?  Would it be "arrogant" to note that addition circuits
on most processors /always/ include overflow detection - because
sometimes these flags /are/ used, and it is cheaper in the circuitry to
generate that signal internally for every addition than to generate it
only sometimes?  (It would certainly be off-topic to do so, because
implementation circuitry is not relevant here.)

I don't intend to be either arrogant or patronising, but I do disagree
with some of your points and comments (while also agreeing with others).

>>
>>> Before we can write x = a * b, with signed integer types, we need to know 
>>> that the product will fit in x.
>> You also need that for unsigned types, if you are looking for a result 
>> that matches normal multiplication rather than modulo operations. (Just 
>> because arithmetic is fully defined for unsigned types, does not mean 
>> your results are always correct.)
> 
> You're repeating my points back to me, without realising that you are doing so.
> I've alreeady made the point that unsigned overflow is often worse. Because
> it is defined behaviour. You cannot get an exception.

It is not worse - it is much the same, in regard to the code itself.

You do not get an exception for unsigned overflow in C (or C++).

You do not get an exception for signed overflow in C (or C++).

In C (and C++), it is the duty of the programmer to ensure that there
will not be overflows in signed arithmetic, /before/ doing the
calculation.  How you do that, is up to you - there is no single "best"
method.

If you want your unsigned arithmetic to have the same results as for
normal mathematical integer arithmetic, rather than modulo arithmetic,
then you also need to ensure there is no overflow (or that the final
results are correct regardless of the overflow).  You can, if you want,
do this by determining the overflow /after/ the operation when dealing
with unsigned operations.

I'm sure you know all this, but I don't think you are expressing it well.

I'm sure you also know that "exception" is a term with a specific
meaning in C++, and that you do not get an exception for signed overflow
or unsigned overflow.

What you /can/ get, if you use appropriate tools and flags or options,
is debugging and testing help to cause some kind of debug output to be
produced for at least some cases of signed overflow.  And you /cannot/
get that for unsigned overflow - as you say, this is because it has
defined behaviour.  This is an advantage C and C++ have over, say, Java,
precisely because they have explicit undefined behaviour here.

>>> That's very burdensome, and most of the time 
>>> we know that a and b must be small. If a and b are read in from a user-supplied 
>>> file, the we don't know that, of course.
>> Then don't multiply them until you /do/ know. 
>>
>> Or make sure the user is aware that this is all "garbage in, garbage 
>> out" and it is their responsibility to provide valid data in the files 
>> and that your program makes no guarantees of correct or safe behaviour 
>> given invalid data.
>>
> That's a possibility. In fact you normally say that the software offers no
> guarantees of correct or safe behaviour undeer any circumstances.
> Liability is limited to the amount of money the customer paid for the
> software. You have no commeercial experience, obviously.

I /do/ have commercial experience.  I also have experience making
software where quality and correctness /is/ guaranteed, and where
reliable safe behaviour is a requirement.

I have plenty of experience writing code that will only work if the
inputs are valid, and nothing is even specified as to what might happen
if they are invalid.

What I do /not/ have experience in doing, is writing software where it
is acceptable to say "this data is not under our control, but we'll
assume it's safe" or "I know this code might be wrong but I can't be
bothered doing it correctly - probably no one will notice any mistakes".

>>
>> It can be good to write code in a way that allows certain classes of 
>> bugs to be turned into defined behaviour that guarantees an error 
>> message - "sanitizers" are useful development tools. But it is even 
>> better if you can find development processes that reduce the risk of 
>> bugs being written into the code, or increase their likelihood of being 
>> spotted early in the process. 
>>
> And it can be good to turn the undefined behaviour (by C++) of 
> integer overflow into the defined behaviour (by the compiler) of
> raising an exception. Then bugs are less likely to be serious. You
> show no ability to understand  this point.

That suggestion was not discussed (outside of its use for development
and debugging, where I explicitly recommended it), so I have given no
impression as to whether or not I might understand its benefit in
released code.  I /do/ understand it, and I agree that in some
circumstances it can make sense to have checks enabled even after
release.  I would rather handle this using appropriate C++ classes than
enabling it for /all/ integer arithmetic, since that would be hugely
inefficient.  (And if you want fully checked code and don't mind a
performance hit, there are other languages that might be better choices
than C++.)  Such classes would also let me raise C++ exceptions, rather
than whatever /you/ mean be "exception" here (I think you mean a signal
or trap).

>>
>> Start by eliminating the idea that you can be lazy about some mistakes 
>> because they just cause visual glitches. Leave "advanced" stuff like 
>> choice of integer types until you have first understood the importance 
>> of writing correct code.
>>
> Noow this really takes thee biscuit.
> 

Okay, I have to admit that /was/ patronising.  But I simply do not
accept your premise that it's fine to leave certain code full of
potential bugs just because you don't think the consequences are major.

Thread

GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-01 20:34 -0700
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 10:19 +0200
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-04-02 12:19 +0200
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 14:18 +0200
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-04-02 12:30 +0200
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-02 14:12 +0200
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 14:20 +0200
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-02 14:28 +0000
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-02 17:27 +0200
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-02 15:39 +0000
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2022-04-02 09:15 -0700
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 08:21 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 12:02 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 14:42 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-04 08:49 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:18 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 08:37 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:54 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-06 11:24 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-06 10:49 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-06 18:21 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2022-04-06 15:40 +0100
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-06 15:00 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2022-04-06 17:03 +0100
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2022-04-06 17:18 +0100
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-07 08:58 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-07 11:01 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 23:13 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-07 09:11 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-06 10:53 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-06 14:50 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Sams Lara <samlara622@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 22:27 +0100
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 14:51 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Sams Lara <samlara622@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 22:59 +0100
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 15:54 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-04-06 15:11 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-09 09:38 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-06 23:48 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-06 18:39 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-06 23:49 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 08:55 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 10:23 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-05 14:36 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-04 12:27 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:21 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 08:41 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:50 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 10:19 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-05 14:33 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-05 14:28 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 18:29 +0200
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-02 11:27 -0700
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 08:23 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 12:15 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 14:43 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 18:34 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:23 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 08:38 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:49 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 11:31 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-05 22:45 +0000
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-02 23:34 -0400
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-03 17:43 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-03 15:40 -0400
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 08:24 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-04 12:01 -0400
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-03 13:02 +0200
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 04:46 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-04-03 07:02 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 11:30 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-03 21:20 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 12:49 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-04-04 00:40 +0300
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 15:40 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 09:13 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 09:02 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 02:07 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 13:28 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 06:01 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 19:11 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-04 17:59 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 06:55 -0700
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-03 18:39 +0200
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-04-03 09:09 +0300
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-02 19:53 +0200
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-03 13:45 +0200
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-03 17:27 +0200
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-04-02 21:17 +0100
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2022-04-02 23:04 +0200
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-04-03 00:22 +0100
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-02 17:33 -0700
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-04-03 14:23 +0100
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-06 08:31 -0700
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-06 11:05 -0700
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-25 03:32 -0700
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-02 11:18 -0700
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-02 13:11 +0200
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-04-02 18:26 +0100
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-04-02 21:46 +0100
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-02 17:35 -0700
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Language Lawyer <language.lawyer@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 02:28 -0700
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-04 05:52 -0700
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Language Lawyer <language.lawyer@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 03:36 -0700
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-04 10:48 +0000
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-04 05:49 -0700
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-05 06:34 +0000
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-04-05 10:20 +0100
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 07:51 -0700
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-05 17:53 +0200
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Christian Hanné <the.hanne@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 06:06 +0200
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-09 21:20 -0700
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-09 21:39 -0700
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 22:34 -0700
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Christian Hanné <the.hanne@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 09:19 +0200
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-10 12:21 +0200
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Christian Hanné <the.hanne@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 12:47 +0200
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-11 12:18 -0700
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 12:33 -0700
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Christian Hanné <the.hanne@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 09:20 +0200
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-11 12:32 -0700
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-11 15:11 -0700

csiph-web