* Re: Arrays of variable length [not found] ` <yw1xh937ckl4.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com> @ 2017-03-09 7:54 ` Tomas Winkler 2017-03-09 13:02 ` Måns Rullgård 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Tomas Winkler @ 2017-03-09 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Måns Rullgård Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse, Herbert Xu, Al Viro On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> writes: > >> On Sun, 05 Mar 2017, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>> > Sparse complains for arrays declared with variable length >>> > >>> > 'warning: Variable length array is used' >>> > >>> > Prior to c99 this was not allowed but lgcc (c99) doesn't have problem >>> > with that https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Length.html. >>> > And also Linux kernel compilation with W=1 doesn't complain. >>> > >>> > Since sparse is used extensively would like to ask what is the correct >>> > usage of arrays of variable length >>> > within Linux Kernel. >>> >>> Variable-length arrays are a very bad idea. Don't use them, ever. >>> If the size has a sane upper bound, just use that value statically. >>> Otherwise, you have a stack overflow waiting to happen and should be >>> using some kind of dynamic allocation instead. >>> >>> Furthermore, use of VLAs generally results in less efficient code. For >>> instance, it forces gcc to waste a register for the frame pointer, and >>> it often prevents inlining. >> >> Well, if we're going to forbid VLAs in the kernel, IMHO the kernel build >> system should call gcc with -Werror=vla to get that point across early, >> and flush out any offenders. > > If it were up to me, that's exactly what I'd do. > Some parts of the kernel depends on VLA such as ___ON_STACK macros in include/crypto/hash.h It's actually pretty neat implementation, maybe it's too harsh to disable VLA completely. Tomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Arrays of variable length 2017-03-09 7:54 ` Arrays of variable length Tomas Winkler @ 2017-03-09 13:02 ` Måns Rullgård 2017-03-09 13:40 ` Tomas Winkler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Måns Rullgård @ 2017-03-09 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse, Herbert Xu, Al Viro Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> writes: >> >>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2017, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>> > Sparse complains for arrays declared with variable length >>>> > >>>> > 'warning: Variable length array is used' >>>> > >>>> > Prior to c99 this was not allowed but lgcc (c99) doesn't have problem >>>> > with that https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Length.html. >>>> > And also Linux kernel compilation with W=1 doesn't complain. >>>> > >>>> > Since sparse is used extensively would like to ask what is the correct >>>> > usage of arrays of variable length >>>> > within Linux Kernel. >>>> >>>> Variable-length arrays are a very bad idea. Don't use them, ever. >>>> If the size has a sane upper bound, just use that value statically. >>>> Otherwise, you have a stack overflow waiting to happen and should be >>>> using some kind of dynamic allocation instead. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, use of VLAs generally results in less efficient code. For >>>> instance, it forces gcc to waste a register for the frame pointer, and >>>> it often prevents inlining. >>> >>> Well, if we're going to forbid VLAs in the kernel, IMHO the kernel build >>> system should call gcc with -Werror=vla to get that point across early, >>> and flush out any offenders. >> >> If it were up to me, that's exactly what I'd do. > >> > Some parts of the kernel depends on VLA such as ___ON_STACK macros in > include/crypto/hash.h > It's actually pretty neat implementation, maybe it's too harsh to > disable VLA completely. And what happens if the requested size is insane? -- Måns Rullgård ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Arrays of variable length 2017-03-09 13:02 ` Måns Rullgård @ 2017-03-09 13:40 ` Tomas Winkler 2017-03-09 14:16 ` Måns Rullgård 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Tomas Winkler @ 2017-03-09 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Måns Rullgård Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse, Herbert Xu, Al Viro On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: > Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> writes: >>> >>>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2017, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> > Sparse complains for arrays declared with variable length >>>>> > >>>>> > 'warning: Variable length array is used' >>>>> > >>>>> > Prior to c99 this was not allowed but lgcc (c99) doesn't have problem >>>>> > with that https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Length.html. >>>>> > And also Linux kernel compilation with W=1 doesn't complain. >>>>> > >>>>> > Since sparse is used extensively would like to ask what is the correct >>>>> > usage of arrays of variable length >>>>> > within Linux Kernel. >>>>> >>>>> Variable-length arrays are a very bad idea. Don't use them, ever. >>>>> If the size has a sane upper bound, just use that value statically. >>>>> Otherwise, you have a stack overflow waiting to happen and should be >>>>> using some kind of dynamic allocation instead. >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore, use of VLAs generally results in less efficient code. For >>>>> instance, it forces gcc to waste a register for the frame pointer, and >>>>> it often prevents inlining. >>>> >>>> Well, if we're going to forbid VLAs in the kernel, IMHO the kernel build >>>> system should call gcc with -Werror=vla to get that point across early, >>>> and flush out any offenders. >>> >>> If it were up to me, that's exactly what I'd do. >> >>> >> Some parts of the kernel depends on VLA such as ___ON_STACK macros in >> include/crypto/hash.h >> It's actually pretty neat implementation, maybe it's too harsh to >> disable VLA completely. > > And what happens if the requested size is insane? One option is to add '-Wvla-larger-than=n' other option is to selectively shut down the warning on ON_STACK macros using #pragma warning(disable:) though this looks rather ugly. Just a thought Tomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Arrays of variable length 2017-03-09 13:40 ` Tomas Winkler @ 2017-03-09 14:16 ` Måns Rullgård 2017-03-09 14:21 ` Tomas Winkler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Måns Rullgård @ 2017-03-09 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse, Herbert Xu, Al Viro Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2017, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> > Sparse complains for arrays declared with variable length >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 'warning: Variable length array is used' >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Prior to c99 this was not allowed but lgcc (c99) doesn't have problem >>>>>> > with that https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Length.html. >>>>>> > And also Linux kernel compilation with W=1 doesn't complain. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Since sparse is used extensively would like to ask what is the correct >>>>>> > usage of arrays of variable length >>>>>> > within Linux Kernel. >>>>>> >>>>>> Variable-length arrays are a very bad idea. Don't use them, ever. >>>>>> If the size has a sane upper bound, just use that value statically. >>>>>> Otherwise, you have a stack overflow waiting to happen and should be >>>>>> using some kind of dynamic allocation instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Furthermore, use of VLAs generally results in less efficient code. For >>>>>> instance, it forces gcc to waste a register for the frame pointer, and >>>>>> it often prevents inlining. >>>>> >>>>> Well, if we're going to forbid VLAs in the kernel, IMHO the kernel build >>>>> system should call gcc with -Werror=vla to get that point across early, >>>>> and flush out any offenders. >>>> >>>> If it were up to me, that's exactly what I'd do. >>> >>>> >>> Some parts of the kernel depends on VLA such as ___ON_STACK macros in >>> include/crypto/hash.h >>> It's actually pretty neat implementation, maybe it's too harsh to >>> disable VLA completely. >> >> And what happens if the requested size is insane? > > One option is to add '-Wvla-larger-than=n' If you know the upper bound, why use VLAs in the first place? -- Måns Rullgård ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Arrays of variable length 2017-03-09 14:16 ` Måns Rullgård @ 2017-03-09 14:21 ` Tomas Winkler 2017-03-09 14:26 ` Måns Rullgård 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Tomas Winkler @ 2017-03-09 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Måns Rullgård Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse, Herbert Xu, Al Viro On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: > Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>>>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2017, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>>>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> > Sparse complains for arrays declared with variable length >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 'warning: Variable length array is used' >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Prior to c99 this was not allowed but lgcc (c99) doesn't have problem >>>>>>> > with that https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Length.html. >>>>>>> > And also Linux kernel compilation with W=1 doesn't complain. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Since sparse is used extensively would like to ask what is the correct >>>>>>> > usage of arrays of variable length >>>>>>> > within Linux Kernel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Variable-length arrays are a very bad idea. Don't use them, ever. >>>>>>> If the size has a sane upper bound, just use that value statically. >>>>>>> Otherwise, you have a stack overflow waiting to happen and should be >>>>>>> using some kind of dynamic allocation instead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Furthermore, use of VLAs generally results in less efficient code. For >>>>>>> instance, it forces gcc to waste a register for the frame pointer, and >>>>>>> it often prevents inlining. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, if we're going to forbid VLAs in the kernel, IMHO the kernel build >>>>>> system should call gcc with -Werror=vla to get that point across early, >>>>>> and flush out any offenders. >>>>> >>>>> If it were up to me, that's exactly what I'd do. >>>> >>>>> >>>> Some parts of the kernel depends on VLA such as ___ON_STACK macros in >>>> include/crypto/hash.h >>>> It's actually pretty neat implementation, maybe it's too harsh to >>>> disable VLA completely. >>> >>> And what happens if the requested size is insane? >> >> One option is to add '-Wvla-larger-than=n' > > If you know the upper bound, why use VLAs in the first place? This is a water mark and not actual usage, but maybe I didn't understand your comment. Tomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Arrays of variable length 2017-03-09 14:21 ` Tomas Winkler @ 2017-03-09 14:26 ` Måns Rullgård 2017-03-09 14:29 ` Tomas Winkler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Måns Rullgård @ 2017-03-09 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse, Herbert Xu, Al Viro Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>>>>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2017, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>>>>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> > Sparse complains for arrays declared with variable length >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > 'warning: Variable length array is used' >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Prior to c99 this was not allowed but lgcc (c99) doesn't have problem >>>>>>>> > with that https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Length.html. >>>>>>>> > And also Linux kernel compilation with W=1 doesn't complain. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Since sparse is used extensively would like to ask what is the correct >>>>>>>> > usage of arrays of variable length >>>>>>>> > within Linux Kernel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Variable-length arrays are a very bad idea. Don't use them, ever. >>>>>>>> If the size has a sane upper bound, just use that value statically. >>>>>>>> Otherwise, you have a stack overflow waiting to happen and should be >>>>>>>> using some kind of dynamic allocation instead. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Furthermore, use of VLAs generally results in less efficient code. For >>>>>>>> instance, it forces gcc to waste a register for the frame pointer, and >>>>>>>> it often prevents inlining. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, if we're going to forbid VLAs in the kernel, IMHO the kernel build >>>>>>> system should call gcc with -Werror=vla to get that point across early, >>>>>>> and flush out any offenders. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it were up to me, that's exactly what I'd do. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Some parts of the kernel depends on VLA such as ___ON_STACK macros in >>>>> include/crypto/hash.h >>>>> It's actually pretty neat implementation, maybe it's too harsh to >>>>> disable VLA completely. >>>> >>>> And what happens if the requested size is insane? >>> >>> One option is to add '-Wvla-larger-than=n' >> >> If you know the upper bound, why use VLAs in the first place? > > This is a water mark and not actual usage, but maybe I didn't > understand your comment. If there is an upper bound known at compile time, why not simply use that size statically? If there is no upper bound, well, then you have a problem. -- Måns Rullgård ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Arrays of variable length 2017-03-09 14:26 ` Måns Rullgård @ 2017-03-09 14:29 ` Tomas Winkler 2017-03-09 14:38 ` Måns Rullgård 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Tomas Winkler @ 2017-03-09 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Måns Rullgård Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse, Herbert Xu, Al Viro On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: > Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2017, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>>>>>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> > Sparse complains for arrays declared with variable length >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > 'warning: Variable length array is used' >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Prior to c99 this was not allowed but lgcc (c99) doesn't have problem >>>>>>>>> > with that https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Length.html. >>>>>>>>> > And also Linux kernel compilation with W=1 doesn't complain. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Since sparse is used extensively would like to ask what is the correct >>>>>>>>> > usage of arrays of variable length >>>>>>>>> > within Linux Kernel. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Variable-length arrays are a very bad idea. Don't use them, ever. >>>>>>>>> If the size has a sane upper bound, just use that value statically. >>>>>>>>> Otherwise, you have a stack overflow waiting to happen and should be >>>>>>>>> using some kind of dynamic allocation instead. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Furthermore, use of VLAs generally results in less efficient code. For >>>>>>>>> instance, it forces gcc to waste a register for the frame pointer, and >>>>>>>>> it often prevents inlining. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, if we're going to forbid VLAs in the kernel, IMHO the kernel build >>>>>>>> system should call gcc with -Werror=vla to get that point across early, >>>>>>>> and flush out any offenders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it were up to me, that's exactly what I'd do. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Some parts of the kernel depends on VLA such as ___ON_STACK macros in >>>>>> include/crypto/hash.h >>>>>> It's actually pretty neat implementation, maybe it's too harsh to >>>>>> disable VLA completely. >>>>> >>>>> And what happens if the requested size is insane? >>>> >>>> One option is to add '-Wvla-larger-than=n' >>> >>> If you know the upper bound, why use VLAs in the first place? >> >> This is a water mark and not actual usage, but maybe I didn't >> understand your comment. > > If there is an upper bound known at compile time, why not simply use > that size statically? If there is no upper bound, well, then you have a > problem. If the compiler can do the job, why not to use this flexibility ? Tomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Arrays of variable length 2017-03-09 14:29 ` Tomas Winkler @ 2017-03-09 14:38 ` Måns Rullgård 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Måns Rullgård @ 2017-03-09 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse, Herbert Xu, Al Viro Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>>>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2017, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> > Sparse complains for arrays declared with variable length >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > 'warning: Variable length array is used' >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Prior to c99 this was not allowed but lgcc (c99) doesn't have problem >>>>>>>>>> > with that https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Length.html. >>>>>>>>>> > And also Linux kernel compilation with W=1 doesn't complain. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Since sparse is used extensively would like to ask what is the correct >>>>>>>>>> > usage of arrays of variable length >>>>>>>>>> > within Linux Kernel. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Variable-length arrays are a very bad idea. Don't use them, ever. >>>>>>>>>> If the size has a sane upper bound, just use that value statically. >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, you have a stack overflow waiting to happen and should be >>>>>>>>>> using some kind of dynamic allocation instead. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, use of VLAs generally results in less efficient code. For >>>>>>>>>> instance, it forces gcc to waste a register for the frame pointer, and >>>>>>>>>> it often prevents inlining. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, if we're going to forbid VLAs in the kernel, IMHO the kernel build >>>>>>>>> system should call gcc with -Werror=vla to get that point across early, >>>>>>>>> and flush out any offenders. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it were up to me, that's exactly what I'd do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some parts of the kernel depends on VLA such as ___ON_STACK macros in >>>>>>> include/crypto/hash.h >>>>>>> It's actually pretty neat implementation, maybe it's too harsh to >>>>>>> disable VLA completely. >>>>>> >>>>>> And what happens if the requested size is insane? >>>>> >>>>> One option is to add '-Wvla-larger-than=n' >>>> >>>> If you know the upper bound, why use VLAs in the first place? >>> >>> This is a water mark and not actual usage, but maybe I didn't >>> understand your comment. >> >> If there is an upper bound known at compile time, why not simply use >> that size statically? If there is no upper bound, well, then you have a >> problem. > > If the compiler can do the job, why not to use this flexibility ? Because, as I already said, there are security implications if the size is unbounded, and even with safely bounded size, using VLAs interferes with compiler optimisations. Ensuring VLAs are used safely is usually more work than simply avoiding them in the first place. -- Måns Rullgård ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-09 14:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CA+i0qc5_NFqb=_6P46yrebrQYzSuCCKgq_xyeui_x6nTRGx62A@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <yw1xlgsjdcjk.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
[not found] ` <20170305211254.GA3220@khazad-dum.debian.net>
[not found] ` <yw1xh937ckl4.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
2017-03-09 7:54 ` Arrays of variable length Tomas Winkler
2017-03-09 13:02 ` Måns Rullgård
2017-03-09 13:40 ` Tomas Winkler
2017-03-09 14:16 ` Måns Rullgård
2017-03-09 14:21 ` Tomas Winkler
2017-03-09 14:26 ` Måns Rullgård
2017-03-09 14:29 ` Tomas Winkler
2017-03-09 14:38 ` Måns Rullgård
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).