🚀 go-pugleaf

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Doug Gwyn on Tue, 26 Mar 1991 22:50

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Doug Gwyn on Tue, 26 Mar 1991 22:56

Re: Unary plus
By: Keizer E G on Tue, 26 Mar 1991 16:36

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Jonathan Gingerich on Tue, 26 Mar 1991 18:18

proper semi-portable use of signal()?
By: Guido van Rossum on Tue, 26 Mar 1991 13:15

Re: Unary plus
By: Henry Spencer on Tue, 26 Mar 1991 16:33

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Christopher R Volpe on Tue, 26 Mar 1991 13:20

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Blair P. Houghton on Tue, 26 Mar 1991 00:35

Re: The Preprocessor and tokens
By: Blair P. Houghton on Mon, 25 Mar 1991 06:33

Re: ANSI vs K&R 3.7.1 structures Help!
By: Blair P. Houghton on Sun, 24 Mar 1991 03:55

Unary plus
By: Michael Henning on Tue, 26 Mar 1991 05:42

tmpfile Question
By: Bjoern Kriews on Sun, 24 Mar 1991 16:25

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Dik T. Winter on Mon, 25 Mar 1991 21:41

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Mark Brader on Mon, 25 Mar 1991 19:52

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Christopher R Volpe on Mon, 25 Mar 1991 21:22

Re: The Preprocessor and tokens
By: Henry Spencer on Mon, 25 Mar 1991 19:01

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Jonathan Gingerich on Mon, 25 Mar 1991 17:45

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Christopher R Volpe on Mon, 25 Mar 1991 12:54

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Doug Gwyn on Mon, 25 Mar 1991 08:36

The Preprocessor and tokens
By: cmills on Mon, 25 Mar 1991 02:37

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Blair P. Houghton on Sat, 23 Mar 1991 04:57

Re: ANSI vs K&R 3.7.1 structures Help!
By: Henry Spencer on Sat, 23 Mar 1991 23:46

Re: H&S III strcat() wrong?
By: Paul A. Sand on Sat, 23 Mar 1991 19:25

ANSI vs K&R 3.7.1 structures Help!
By: john c kelly on Fri, 22 Mar 1991 18:37

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Jonathan Gingerich on Sat, 23 Mar 1991 01:44

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Doug Gwyn on Fri, 22 Mar 1991 21:58

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Christopher R Volpe on Fri, 22 Mar 1991 14:11

Re: H&S III strcat() wrong?
By: Gordan Palameta on Fri, 22 Mar 1991 03:01

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Colin Plumb on Fri, 22 Mar 1991 02:42

Re: no type-specifier ==> int
By: Norman Diamond on Fri, 22 Mar 1991 01:00

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Stephen Clamage on Thu, 21 Mar 1991 18:07

H&S III problems
By: Rex Jaeschke on Wed, 20 Mar 1991 19:46

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Doug Gwyn on Thu, 21 Mar 1991 00:59

Re: H&S III strcat() wrong?
By: Doug Gwyn on Wed, 20 Mar 1991 21:59

Re: Function Argument Evaluation
By: Christopher R Volpe on Wed, 20 Mar 1991 21:50

Function Argument Evaluation
By: John Polstra on Mon, 18 Mar 1991 19:29

no type-specifier ==> int
By: Blair P. Houghton on Tue, 19 Mar 1991 04:59

Re: 3.7 constraints and 3.7.2 semantics
By: Blair P. Houghton on Tue, 19 Mar 1991 04:49

Re: H&S III strcat() wrong?
By: Clark O. Morgan on Tue, 19 Mar 1991 17:53

H&S III strcat() wrong?
By: Stephen Vinoski on Tue, 19 Mar 1991 14:57

Re: 3.7 constraints and 3.7.2 semantics
By: Doug Gwyn on Tue, 19 Mar 1991 05:26

Re: 3.7 constraints and 3.7.2 semantics
By: Norman Diamond on Tue, 19 Mar 1991 05:00

Two questions about the standard library
By: Ian Lance Taylor on Tue, 19 Mar 1991 01:04

Re: H&S III problems
By: Norman Diamond on Fri, 22 Mar 1991 00:52

Re: H&S III strcat() wrong?
By: Norman Diamond on Wed, 20 Mar 1991 00:40

Re: type and size of bit-fields
By: Norman Diamond on Mon, 18 Mar 1991 04:16

3.7 constraints and 3.7.2 semantics
By: James Jones on Mon, 18 Mar 1991 18:16

Re: Must setjmp() be a macro?
By: Doug Gwyn on Sat, 16 Mar 1991 22:46

Re: Must setjmp() be a macro?
By: Chris Torek on Sat, 16 Mar 1991 07:33

Must setjmp() be a macro?
By: Fred Zlotnick on Fri, 15 Mar 1991 21:25

Re: wchar_t
By: Doug Gwyn on Fri, 15 Mar 1991 19:38

Re: wchar_t
By: Christian Carey on Thu, 14 Mar 1991 15:48

Re: wchar_t
By: Henry Spencer on Sun, 17 Mar 1991 03:20

wchar_t
By: harkcom on Fri, 15 Mar 1991 20:28

PROTOIZE/UNPROTOIZE 1.39.0 now available
By: Ron Guilmette on Fri, 01 Mar 1991 18:44

Re: A question about the pp-tokens in macro actual arguments.
By: Norman Diamond on Wed, 13 Mar 1991 00:43

A question about the pp-tokens in macro actual arguments.
By: Ron Guilmette on Tue, 12 Mar 1991 02:55

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Ron Guilmette on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 08:43

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Ron Guilmette on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 08:22

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Ron Guilmette on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 08:13

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Lars Wirzenius on Mon, 11 Mar 1991 16:01

Re: Is this a bug in Quick C?
By: Doug Gwyn on Mon, 11 Mar 1991 18:26

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Ray Butterworth on Mon, 11 Mar 1991 19:37

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Doug Gwyn on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 20:12

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Doug Gwyn on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 20:08

Re: offsetof
By: Doug Gwyn on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 19:57

Re: A question about tenative definitions
By: Doug Gwyn on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 19:53

Journal Contents
By: Rex Jaeschke on Sat, 09 Mar 1991 22:03

Plauger's Standard C Library Source
By: Rex Jaeschke on Sat, 09 Mar 1991 01:35

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Eamonn McManus on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 18:55

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Stephen Clamage on Fri, 08 Mar 1991 16:23

Is this a bug in Quick C?
By: house ron on Mon, 11 Mar 1991 09:34

Re: ANSI printf
By: Michael Meissner on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 22:47

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Ray Butterworth on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 19:47

ANSI printf
By: Ray Mitchell on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 18:01

C Standards
By: Marc de Montigny (PFE M. Bernard... on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 03:01

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Rahul Dhesi on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 02:23

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Fred Zlotnick on Wed, 06 Mar 1991 19:40

offsetof
By: John F Carr on Wed, 06 Mar 1991 23:28

Re: A question about tenative definitions
By: Stanley Friesen on Tue, 05 Mar 1991 20:13

Re: A question about tentative definitions
By: Paul Eggert on Tue, 05 Mar 1991 20:01

Re: A question about tenative definitions
By: Ron Guilmette on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 20:36

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Doug Gwyn on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 17:02

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Doug Gwyn on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 16:59

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Doug Gwyn on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 16:50

Re: A question about tenative definitions
By: Paul de Bra on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 16:10

A question about tenative definitions
By: Ron Guilmette on Sun, 03 Mar 1991 17:32

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Peter A. Bigot on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 00:34

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: John F Haugh II on Sun, 03 Mar 1991 19:58

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Ron Guilmette on Sat, 02 Mar 1991 23:33

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Ron Guilmette on Sat, 02 Mar 1991 23:21

Re: Rationale for allowing const T* = T* wanted.
By: Ron Guilmette on Sat, 02 Mar 1991 23:11

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Doug Gwyn on Sun, 03 Mar 1991 04:18

Re: Localization (4.4.2.1)
By: Chuck.Phillips on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 08:43

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: John F Haugh II on Tue, 05 Mar 1991 13:41

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: xtdn on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 22:27

Re: Localization (4.4.2.1)
By: Rex Jaeschke on Sun, 03 Mar 1991 02:09

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Henry Spencer on Sun, 03 Mar 1991 00:38

References to the standard
By: Lars Henrik Mathiesen on Thu, 28 Feb 1991 22:48

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Peter da Silva on Wed, 27 Feb 1991 17:12

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Peter da Silva on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 23:14

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Peter da Silva on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 23:16

Re: ANSI C Specs
By: Tony Hart on Thu, 28 Feb 1991 15:24

Re: pointers for speed
By: Christopher R Volpe on Thu, 28 Feb 1991 14:53

Re: ANSI C Specs
By: D'Arcy J.M. Cain on Wed, 27 Feb 1991 13:22

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Doug Gwyn on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 20:19

pointers for speed
By: Shaun Case on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 21:13

Re: ANSI C Specs
By: deron meranda on Wed, 27 Feb 1991 18:24

Re: pointers for speed
By: Dave P. Schaumann on Wed, 27 Feb 1991 11:50

curious (but compatible)
By: James Jones on Wed, 27 Feb 1991 15:54

Re: int (*f)(void) = 0; int (*f)(void) = (void *) 0;
By: Chris Torek on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 22:17

Re: HELP: ===> wildcard ===> filename listing
By: Peter da Silva on Thu, 28 Feb 1991 23:17

Re: HELP: ===> wildcard ===> filename listing
By: Peter da Silva on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 22:16

Re: HELP: ===> wildcard ===> filename listing
By: Rick Schubert on Wed, 27 Feb 1991 15:55

Re: pointers for speed
By: Christopher R Volpe on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 14:18

Re: ANSI C Specs
By: Stan Brown on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 22:23

int (*f)(void) = 0; int (*f)(void) = (void *) 0;
By: Earl Chew on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 21:39

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Ron Guilmette on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 01:27

Re: translation phases
By: Garry Wiegand on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 23:54

Re: pointers for speed
By: Dave P. Schaumann on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 23:36

ANSI C Specs
By: Brad Pepers on Sun, 24 Feb 1991 21:39

Re: Want the word on __STDC__
By: Stephen Clamage on Fri, 22 Feb 1991 16:58

Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
By: Rick Schubert on Fri, 22 Feb 1991 21:04

Re: translation phases
By: Colin Plumb on Sun, 24 Feb 1991 04:54

Re: formal interpretations (was Structure tags)
By: Doug Gwyn on Sun, 24 Feb 1991 01:37

Re: formal interpretations (was Structure tags)
By: Wade Guthrie on Fri, 22 Feb 1991 19:21

I have seen the ISO C standard, and it is weird.
By: Lars Henrik Mathiesen on Sat, 23 Feb 1991 20:34

Re: translation phases
By: Doug Gwyn on Sat, 23 Feb 1991 20:33