comp.compilers.lcc Google Group

624 Garmin GPS 62457

2008-07-16T21:27:15Z

============================== =========
Get A GPS Today At A Low Price!!
[link]
============================== =========
GPS Devices [link]
============================== =========
2X[k \p\)Q\]wCIm @4n&

Re: Bush To Lift North Korea Sanctions

2008-07-13T02:05:26Z

"YLE teksti-TV 24.04. Ruoan hinnan nousu herättää huolta. YK vaatii pikaisia
toimia ruoan tuotannon lisäämiseksi ja köyhien auttamiseksi, sillä ruoan
hinnan nousu uhkaa torpedoida tähänastiset ponnistelut maailman köyhyyden
nujertamiseksi.
Poliittisen julistuksen ohella maat sopivat 100 miljoonan dollarin

Re: intel auto-parallization

2008-07-10T01:17:33Z

... snip ...
No it isn't. The C language is topical, not the compilers. You
probably want some newsgroup with 'Intel' in the name.

Re: intel auto-parallization

2008-07-10T00:11:04Z

[...]
Right.
No, discussion of the C *language* is topical in comp.lang.c.

Re: intel auto-parallization

2008-07-09T13:07:59Z

Please, here is not Intel's help desk.
You should call your compiler technical support.
Just look at your installation bill and it
should have the technical support hot line.

Re: intel auto-parallization

2008-07-09T18:09:18Z

You've misread the name of this group: it discusses the lcc compiler,
not Intel's compiler.
Try posting your question to comp.lang.c, where discussion of any C
compiler is topical.

Re: tgmath.h

2008-07-08T20:42:37Z

Yes, fixed.
The new overloaded symbol should be part of the global scope
and searched only at global scope.
When you defined a new overloaded function I test if the
function was defined before. If it was I complain. But
that search should only search global sope symbols, not
lower scopes.

Re: tgmath.h

2008-07-07T17:43:53Z

Also, I just noticed this:
void overloaded f(int f) { return; }
gives an error.

Re: tgmath.h

2008-07-07T16:20:07Z

Yes, I am missing

tgmath.h

2008-07-07T14:56:51Z

You have a minor bug in the way you implement tgmath.h:
int main(void)
{
float x = 1.0;
if (sizeof atan2(x, x) != sizeof x)
printf("Not correct\n");
return 0;

Re: Getting the file name from a FILE *

2008-07-01T02:18:47Z

... snip ...
Well, with my change in news-servers resulting in a new troll-file,
you have so far escaped installation. No longer. You are now
properly classified with Twink and McCormack. Bye.

Re: Getting the file name from a FILE *

2008-06-30T19:18:56Z

In article <eL6dnWDsi50GuPTVRVnz...@telen or.com>,
I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. Perhaps someone else (if anyone's
bothered to follow it) could resolve the point.
-- Richard

Re: Getting the file name from a FILE *

2008-06-30T18:27:39Z

I said:
"Your interpretation, appear more stupid."
it was you who talked about _stupid_ design, I just made a relative
assertion. Do you understand the difference?
FYI, I have not said yet, whether I consider it a stupid design or not.
???
I give up, you contradict yourself too much, is 3 + X equal to the total

Re: Getting the file name from a FILE *

2008-06-30T17:28:10Z

In article <KpidnS5iMetCkPTV4p2d...@telen or.com>,
This seems to be the very "all open at once" interpretation which you
said was stupid.
Ok, the maximum number of simultaneously open files. If you read the
files one after another (and close them as you go along), the memory
will be available to malloc() to reuse. You would only need memory

Re: Getting the file name from a FILE *

2008-06-30T16:46:23Z

In the message you responded to, I said:
"When adding features like _fname(), there will be a cost,
the main thing might not even the extra bloat by mem usage,
but that this trigger more cache misses, worse branch
prediction etc. etc."
To spell it out: my main consern was NOT the extra SPACE required, but