13 year old C source code

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by buck, Jul 28, 2011.

  1. buck

    buck Guest

    I haven't programmed in a VERY long time and I never was much good at
    it anyway. From this you can accurately imply that I'm the wrong
    person to be doing this. However:

    I have been tasked to determine the feasibility of updating 13 year
    old (pre ANSI) ASM and C source code for the purpose of compiling a
    64-bit executable.

    The source code was last modified in November of 1998 and was compiled
    using C88 v3.03 and ASM88 v1.5, which are copyright Mark DeSmet 1987
    and 1986 respectively.

    Are there any utilities that examine old C code and suggest how to
    make it compliant with current compilers? I tried splint v3.1.2, but
    it crashes on line 110 of 824 lines and does not tell me how to
    correct the errors and warnings it does find.

    Are there any utilities that examine 8086 ASM code and explain what to
    change to make it compile for a 64-bit CPU? I type 'debug' in a CMD
    prompt in Vista in order to see the register names, but (of course)
    Vista has no DEBUG...

    One of the things I'm completely stuck on is the difference in char.
    In the existing source code and with C88,

    'static char v[]={-20,-124,-180,-93,-88,-73,-27,-146,9,-38,-179 ...'

    works, but the values obviously violate current char (and unsigned
    char) rules. If char is changed to long, the values seem to be
    accepted, but the function is called with a char variable.

    Any suggested resources other than utilities would be appreciated,
    too. Google hasn't been much help, so the above includes a request
    for suggested search phrases.
    --
    buck
     
    buck, Jul 28, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. buck

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 28/07/11 21:04, buck a écrit :
    > I haven't programmed in a VERY long time and I never was much good at
    > it anyway. From this you can accurately imply that I'm the wrong
    > person to be doing this. However:
    >
    > I have been tasked to determine the feasibility of updating 13 year
    > old (pre ANSI) ASM and C source code for the purpose of compiling a
    > 64-bit executable.
    >
    > The source code was last modified in November of 1998 and was compiled
    > using C88 v3.03 and ASM88 v1.5, which are copyright Mark DeSmet 1987
    > and 1986 respectively.
    >


    All this doesn't look very fresh...


    > Are there any utilities that examine old C code and suggest how to
    > make it compliant with current compilers?


    No, you need a human to do that. And you have to pay gim/her a
    significant amount of money since it is a significant effort.

    > I tried splint v3.1.2, but
    > it crashes on line 110 of 824 lines and does not tell me how to
    > correct the errors and warnings it does find.
    >


    Well, you need someone that knows C and assembly.


    > Are there any utilities that examine 8086 ASM code and explain what to
    > change to make it compile for a 64-bit CPU?



    From this question I understand that you have really no clue...

    :)

    Compiling/Assembling is not really that difficult. But I suppose that
    you want that it RUNS correctly afterwards isn't it?


    > I type 'debug' in a CMD
    > prompt in Vista in order to see the register names, but (of course)
    > Vista has no DEBUG...
    >


    Vista has very good debugger though... But you will need a 16 bit
    debugger and those beasts disappeared something like 15 years or more
    ago.

    > One of the things I'm completely stuck on is the difference in char.
    > In the existing source code and with C88,
    >
    > 'static char v[]={-20,-124,-180,-93,-88,-73,-27,-146,9,-38,-179 ...'
    >
    > works, but the values obviously violate current char (and unsigned
    > char) rules.


    No, this is valid code. Why should be wrong? You are probably compiling
    with char defaulting to unsigned char. Change that.


    If char is changed to long, the values seem to be
    > accepted, but the function is called with a char variable.
    >


    Normally, a char variable is changed to int when passed to a function
    that receives a char anyway since in modern CPUs you never push a
    single char into the stack.


    > Any suggested resources other than utilities would be appreciated,
    > too. Google hasn't been much help, so the above includes a request
    > for suggested search phrases.
    > --
    > buck



    Look buck, the only real solution is to get somebody that knows the
    stuff and pay him $$$ to do the job. You can't do it, I fear, you would
    need months of work just to get started into it.
     
    jacob navia, Jul 28, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 2011/07/28 21:04, buck wrote:

    > One of the things I'm completely stuck on is the difference in char.
    > In the existing source code and with C88,
    >
    > 'static char v[]={-20,-124,-180,-93,-88,-73,-27,-146,9,-38,-179 ...'
    >
    > works, but the values obviously violate current char (and unsigned
    > char) rules.


    Try

    #include <limits.h>
    #define CHARIZE(x) (CHAR_MIN+255&((x)-CHAR_MIN))
    static char v[]={CHARIZE(-20),CHARIZE(-124),CHARIZE(-180) ...

    However, if that's obfuscated x86 code, you might be out of luck.

    Francois Grieu
     
    Francois Grieu, Jul 28, 2011
    #3
  4. On 2011/07/28 21:30, jacob navia wrote:
    > Le 28/07/11 21:04, buck a écrit :
    >> One of the things I'm completely stuck on is the difference in char.
    >> In the existing source code and with C88,
    >>
    >> 'static char v[]={-20,-124,-180,-93,-88,-73,-27,-146,9,-38,-179 ...'
    >>
    >> works, but the values obviously violate current char (and unsigned
    >> char) rules.

    >
    > No, this is valid code. Why should it be wrong?


    -180 -146 and -179 are less than CHAR_MIN is on anything that
    I ever used.

    Francois Grieu
     
    Francois Grieu, Jul 28, 2011
    #4
  5. buck

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 28/07/11 21:35, Francois Grieu a écrit :
    > On 2011/07/28 21:30, jacob navia wrote:
    >> Le 28/07/11 21:04, buck a écrit :
    >>> One of the things I'm completely stuck on is the difference in char.
    >>> In the existing source code and with C88,
    >>>
    >>> 'static char v[]={-20,-124,-180,-93,-88,-73,-27,-146,9,-38,-179 ...'
    >>>
    >>> works, but the values obviously violate current char (and unsigned
    >>> char) rules.

    >>
    >> No, this is valid code. Why should it be wrong?

    >
    > -180 -146 and -179 are less than CHAR_MIN is on anything that
    > I ever used.
    >
    > Francois Grieu


    So what? The compiler should take the lower 8 bits...

    For instance -180 should be 0x4c.
     
    jacob navia, Jul 28, 2011
    #5
  6. buck

    Rich Webb Guest

    On 28 Jul 2011 19:04:29 GMT, buck <> wrote:

    >I haven't programmed in a VERY long time and I never was much good at
    >it anyway. From this you can accurately imply that I'm the wrong
    >person to be doing this. However:
    >
    >I have been tasked to determine the feasibility of updating 13 year
    >old (pre ANSI) ASM and C source code for the purpose of compiling a
    >64-bit executable.
    >
    >The source code was last modified in November of 1998 and was compiled
    >using C88 v3.03 and ASM88 v1.5, which are copyright Mark DeSmet 1987
    >and 1986 respectively.
    >
    >Are there any utilities that examine old C code and suggest how to
    >make it compliant with current compilers? I tried splint v3.1.2, but
    >it crashes on line 110 of 824 lines and does not tell me how to
    >correct the errors and warnings it does find.


    splint was an academic exercise and never really a very good tool in
    production (although there are certainly folks who use it that way). If
    you need linting, then Gimpel lint is the way to go. Be aware that code
    that wasn't linted during development can throw so many warnings and
    errors that fixing everything can be like cleaning King Augeas' stables.
    "So much shit! Where to start?" The answer is probably the same one that
    Herc used: wash it all away and start over rather than try to go at it a
    line at a time.

    >Are there any utilities that examine 8086 ASM code and explain what to
    >change to make it compile for a 64-bit CPU? I type 'debug' in a CMD
    >prompt in Vista in order to see the register names, but (of course)
    >Vista has no DEBUG...


    Machines are much faster nowadays and have lots more resources, so
    whatever prompted the original requirement for embedded assembly may no
    longer be important. You'll need to understand what the original
    assembly was doing, whether you leave it as assembly or use C, so first
    thing would be to replace it with functionally equivalent C code and
    that may be good enough.

    >One of the things I'm completely stuck on is the difference in char.
    >In the existing source code and with C88,
    >
    >'static char v[]={-20,-124,-180,-93,-88,-73,-27,-146,9,-38,-179 ...'


    Change to "static signed char ..." Check other places where the
    signedness of char may matter.

    >
    >works, but the values obviously violate current char (and unsigned
    >char) rules. If char is changed to long, the values seem to be
    >accepted, but the function is called with a char variable.
    >
    >Any suggested resources other than utilities would be appreciated,
    >too. Google hasn't been much help, so the above includes a request
    >for suggested search phrases.


    --
    Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
     
    Rich Webb, Jul 28, 2011
    #6
  7. buck <> writes:
    > I haven't programmed in a VERY long time and I never was much good at
    > it anyway. From this you can accurately imply that I'm the wrong
    > person to be doing this. However:
    >
    > I have been tasked to determine the feasibility of updating 13 year
    > old (pre ANSI) ASM and C source code for the purpose of compiling a
    > 64-bit executable.


    If it's only 13 years old (1998), I'm a bit surprised that it's
    pre-ANSI; the ANSI standard was published 9 years before that
    (and re-published as ISO C90 a year later).

    > The source code was last modified in November of 1998 and was compiled
    > using C88 v3.03 and ASM88 v1.5, which are copyright Mark DeSmet 1987
    > and 1986 respectively.


    Ok, those would be pre-ANSI compilers -- but at least some compilers
    back then probably supported prototypes, which are probably the
    most significant change ANSI introduced.

    On the other hand, K&R-style (non-prototype) function declarations are
    still legal, even in C99; I don't think even the C201X draft gets rid of
    them. (A pity, IMHO, but that's beside the point.)

    > Are there any utilities that examine old C code and suggest how to
    > make it compliant with current compilers? I tried splint v3.1.2, but
    > it crashes on line 110 of 824 lines and does not tell me how to
    > correct the errors and warnings it does find.


    Personally, I'd just compile the code with whatever modern compiler
    I want to use, and go through and fix any errors it reports.
    That requires a fairly good knowledge of C, but I can't think of
    any approach that doesn't.

    Be sure to use a good source control system so you can keep track
    of just what changes you've made.

    > Are there any utilities that examine 8086 ASM code and explain what to
    > change to make it compile for a 64-bit CPU? I type 'debug' in a CMD
    > prompt in Vista in order to see the register names, but (of course)
    > Vista has no DEBUG...


    Can't help you with that. It has nothing to do with C, so you'll get
    better help elsewhere.

    > One of the things I'm completely stuck on is the difference in char.
    > In the existing source code and with C88,
    >
    > 'static char v[]={-20,-124,-180,-93,-88,-73,-27,-146,9,-38,-179 ...'
    >
    > works, but the values obviously violate current char (and unsigned
    > char) rules. If char is changed to long, the values seem to be
    > accepted, but the function is called with a char variable.


    That's not a K&R-vs-ANSI issue. Unless C88 targets some exotic
    system with char bigger than 8 bits (unlikely), that code was wrong
    to begin with. As Francois Grieu points out, the values -180,
    -146, and -179 are almost certainly outside the range of char.
    In practice, they'll most likely be implicitly converted to 76, 110,
    and 77, respectively (though that's not guaranteed by the language).
    Possibly the only difference is that the older compiler might not
    have warned about it.

    char probably isn't the right type for the array; given the values,
    and assuming you change the out-of-range values as described, it
    should prboably be signed char. Or perhaps unsigned char would
    make more sense; then you should change all the negative values as
    well (add 256 to each of them). It depends very much on what it's
    being used for. (Arrays of unsigned char are usually the best way
    to represent arbitrary byte sequences.)

    > Any suggested resources other than utilities would be appreciated,
    > too. Google hasn't been much help, so the above includes a request
    > for suggested search phrases.


    Most valid pre-ANSI C code should still compile with a modern
    compiler, though warnings are likely. You'll probably have more
    problems with (a) use of extensions supported by the old compiler
    but not by the newer one, and (b) bad code that the old compiler
    didn't diagnose properly.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Jul 28, 2011
    #7
  8. buck wrote:
    >I have been tasked to determine the feasibility of updating 13 year
    >old (pre ANSI) ASM and C source code for the purpose of compiling a
    >64-bit executable.
    >
    >The source code was last modified in November of 1998 and was compiled
    >using C88 v3.03 and ASM88 v1.5, which are copyright Mark DeSmet 1987
    >and 1986 respectively.
    >
    >Are there any utilities that examine old C code and suggest how to
    >make it compliant with current compilers? I tried splint ...


    I would recommend Gimpel's PC-Lint (
    http://www.gimpel.com/html/index.htm ), but to really take advantage
    of it you need a level of knowledge that, from your post, you do not
    have.

    You could create a Visual Studio or Eclipse project based on the
    sources you have, and start modifying the code until it compiles
    cleanly with whatever options you choose.
    Even if it does not run, the navigation, search, code completion, etc.
    features of these environments can save you some time and effort.

    >Are there any utilities that examine 8086 ASM code and explain what to
    >change to make it compile for a 64-bit CPU?


    Don't know, probably not. But, why do you want to preserve the ASM
    code? Why was there any ASM code to begin with?
    Probable reasons:
    a) To interface with libraries with different calling conventions
    (FORTRAN, Pascal)
    b) To access system calls that were not available via the language's
    run time library.
    c) To directly access hardware.
    d) For speed.
    f) The ASM code already existed, and was being reused.

    Those reasons probably are not relevant today. You may be better off
    rewriting the ASM code in C instead of porting it to a 64 bit
    environment.

    > I type 'debug' in a CMD
    >prompt in Vista in order to see the register names, but (of course)
    >Vista has no DEBUG...


    There isn't a DEBUG program as in the good old MS-DOS days, but Visual
    Studio comes with a symbolic debugger so much powerful than DEBUG that
    any comparison is meaningless. Also check Hewart and Pravat "Advanced
    Windows Debugging"

    >Any suggested resources other than utilities would be appreciated,
    >too. Google hasn't been much help, so the above includes a request
    >for suggested search phrases.


    I agree with Jacob Navia's suggestion to farm out the job to somebody
    with current experience.
    --
    Roberto Waltman

    [ Please reply to the group.
    Return address is invalid ]
     
    Roberto Waltman, Jul 28, 2011
    #8
  9. buck

    buck Guest

    jacob navia <> wrote in news:j0sdco$6lr$1
    @speranza.aioe.org:

    > Le 28/07/11 21:04, buck a écrit :
    >> Are there any utilities that examine 8086 ASM code and explain what

    to
    >> change to make it compile for a 64-bit CPU?

    >
    >
    > From this question I understand that you have really no clue...
    >
    >:)


    Correct. I thought I said that :)
    --
    buck
     
    buck, Jul 28, 2011
    #9
  10. Roberto Waltman wrote:
    >...
    >There isn't a DEBUG program as in the good old MS-DOS days, but Visual
    >Studio comes with a symbolic debugger ...


    Check "Download and Install Debugging Tools for Windows"
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463009

    --
    Roberto Waltman

    [ Please reply to the group.
    Return address is invalid ]
     
    Roberto Waltman, Jul 28, 2011
    #10
  11. buck

    Ben Pfaff Guest

    buck <> writes:

    > I have been tasked to determine the feasibility of updating 13 year
    > old (pre ANSI) ASM and C source code for the purpose of compiling a
    > 64-bit executable.


    How big is it? What does it do? Based on the answers, you might
    decide that rewriting it or using a modern equivalent is less
    work and more satisfying than trying to port it to a modern OS
    and toolchain.

    By the way, if it's only 13 years old then it was written in an
    old style: in 1998, the ANSI C standard had already been out for
    9 years.
    --
    Ben Pfaff
    http://benpfaff.org
     
    Ben Pfaff, Jul 28, 2011
    #11
  12. jacob navia <> writes:
    > Le 28/07/11 21:35, Francois Grieu a écrit :
    >> On 2011/07/28 21:30, jacob navia wrote:
    >>> Le 28/07/11 21:04, buck a écrit :
    >>>> One of the things I'm completely stuck on is the difference in char.
    >>>> In the existing source code and with C88,
    >>>>
    >>>> 'static char v[]={-20,-124,-180,-93,-88,-73,-27,-146,9,-38,-179 ...'
    >>>>
    >>>> works, but the values obviously violate current char (and unsigned
    >>>> char) rules.
    >>>
    >>> No, this is valid code. Why should it be wrong?

    >>
    >> -180 -146 and -179 are less than CHAR_MIN is on anything that
    >> I ever used.
    >>
    >> Francois Grieu

    >
    > So what? The compiler should take the lower 8 bits...
    >
    > For instance -180 should be 0x4c.


    Chances are it will do so (though the standard doesn't require it,
    unless plain char is unsigned). But the unanswered question is,
    why did the original code use -180 in the first place?

    It could well indicate a bug in the original code, having nothing
    to do with K&R vs. ANSI C (perhaps it was missed because the older
    compiler didn't bother to warn about it).

    We really don't have enough information to do more that guess,
    but if I were working on this I'd certainly try to find out.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Jul 28, 2011
    #12
  13. "Scott Fluhrer" <> writes:
    [...]
    > One thing I remember DeSmet not catching:
    >
    > char c;
    > c = "T"; /* Yup; c got set to the lower 8 bits of the address,
    > without even a warning from the compiler! */


    Ok, that could explain why the code initializing a char to -180 never
    got fixed (the compiler wouldn't have warned about it). It wouldn't
    explain why it was written that way in the first place, but assuming the
    code actually worked, either leaving it alone and ignoring the warnings,
    or changing the value from -180 to 76, might be ok.

    But we still have no clue what the char array is actually used for,
    and the OP hasn't given us much feedback.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Jul 28, 2011
    #13
  14. buck

    BGB Guest

    On 7/28/2011 1:37 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
    >> I have been tasked to determine the feasibility of updating 13 year
    >> old (pre ANSI) ASM and C source code for the purpose of compiling a
    >> 64-bit executable.
    >>
    >> The source code was last modified in November of 1998 and was compiled
    >> using C88 v3.03 and ASM88 v1.5, which are copyright Mark DeSmet 1987
    >> and 1986 respectively.

    >
    > What CPU is this? 8088? 8080? 8008?
    >


    I think elsewhere 8086 was mentioned.
    most likely it was an MS-DOS app.

    > One way to run a program like this is, especially when there's
    > assembly involved, is to write a full emulator, with the binary
    > of the program as the data. This is a large job, and it won't
    > easily let you modify the code involved even after you're finished.
    >
    > If you do a good job writing the emulator, the code can be portable
    > to many different CPUs, even though it still has ASM in it.
    >


    or maybe use DOSBox...

    DOSBox can run DOS apps on modern Windows, and one can also get Win3.11
    to work in it (albeit XPMode or VMware+WinXP are better for running
    Win3.x apps, as then the OS is less prone to breaking...).


    > Do you have a working version of the compiler that will compile it?
    > (on any system you have access to?) It may well come down to figuring
    > out what that compiler did (by examining the generated code) and
    > figuring out how to do that in a portable way.
    >
    >> Are there any utilities that examine old C code and suggest how to
    >> make it compliant with current compilers? I tried splint v3.1.2, but
    >> it crashes on line 110 of 824 lines and does not tell me how to
    >> correct the errors and warnings it does find.

    >
    > Running slint on the program *crashes* slint? This is distinct
    > from just giving an error message and giving up on further analysis.
    > I hope you report the bug to the vendor.
    >
    > A lint-like program is a good tool, but it may overwhelm you with
    > warnings. For syntax problems, generally the first error message
    > is the one to look at, as the rest may be caused by faulty assumptions
    > trying to recover from the first error.
    >
    > Don't expect a program to be able to guess how to fix it. If there
    > are several things that are inconsitent, you need to make them
    > consistent by changing all but one of them, but knowing which one
    > requires a lot of knowledge of what the program is supposed to be
    > doing. It's like going to a junk yard and trying to put stuff
    > together, not realizing that the parts you have are half a car,
    > half an airplane, half a vacuum cleaner, and half a TV set.
    >
    > One of the worst examples of this was a program entered into the
    > obfuscated C contest that consisted of one array initialization
    > (that's the entire program!):
    >
    > short main [] = { ...bunch of numbers in here ... };
    >
    > It's portable between the VAX and PDP-11.
    >


    yep...


    >
    >> Are there any utilities that examine 8086 ASM code and explain what to
    >> change to make it compile for a 64-bit CPU?

    >
    > In one context I think they are called 'grad students'.
    >
    >> I type 'debug' in a CMD
    >> prompt in Vista in order to see the register names, but (of course)
    >> Vista has no DEBUG...
    >>
    >> One of the things I'm completely stuck on is the difference in char.
    >> In the existing source code and with C88,
    >>
    >> 'static char v[]={-20,-124,-180,-93,-88,-73,-27,-146,9,-38,-179 ...'
    >>
    >> works, but the values obviously violate current char (and unsigned
    >> char) rules.

    >
    > I'm going to make an assumption that it took the bottom 8 bits of
    > each value and stuffed them into a char/unsigned char.
    >
    >> If char is changed to long, the values seem to be
    >> accepted, but the function is called with a char variable.

    >
    > If you change the definition so v[] is an array of long, you have to
    > deal with changing everything that uses that array. Things may not
    > go so well if a pointer into v gets fed to string-handling functions.
    >
    >> Any suggested resources other than utilities would be appreciated,
    >> too. Google hasn't been much help, so the above includes a request
    >> for suggested search phrases.

    >
    > You may find a lot of problems by carefully analyzing the type of
    > every parameter passed to a function (particularly library and
    > system functions) and make sure that it is correct. long is not
    > necessarily the same size as int. int is not necessarily the same
    > size as short. Also, keep an eye out for mis-use of pointers that
    > depends on the byte-order of the CPU.
    >


    long ago (back when I was much younger), I had some code like this (the
    Wolfenstein 3D source), which at the time I had no idea how to build
    into a form I could run on more modern systems at the time (Windows and
    Linux). at the time I did use it some as a read-only learning aide.

    later on (after I learned programming a bit better), I could probably
    have done it, but by this point there was no longer much point (as I was
    off messing with the Quake source and OpenGL).

    kind of funny how things are sometimes...
     
    BGB, Jul 29, 2011
    #14
  15. buck

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Thu, 2011-07-28, buck wrote:
    > I haven't programmed in a VERY long time and I never was much good at
    > it anyway. From this you can accurately imply that I'm the wrong
    > person to be doing this. However:
    >
    > I have been tasked to determine the feasibility of updating 13 year
    > old (pre ANSI) ASM and C source code for the purpose of compiling a
    > 64-bit executable.
    >
    > The source code was last modified in November of 1998 and was compiled
    > using C88 v3.03 and ASM88 v1.5, which are copyright Mark DeSmet 1987
    > and 1986 respectively.


    The code may be 13 years old on the surface, but I get the feeling
    it's soul is more like 30 years old ...

    > Are there any utilities that examine old C code and suggest how to
    > make it compliant with current compilers?


    Like Jacob said, what you need is a C programmer. The compiler, the
    build system and other normal tools should be enough as far as tools
    are concerned.

    Depending on the coding style of the original code, you may have lots
    of work, or not so much. Much depends on how well the code used the
    type checking (which IIRC was optional before ANSI C, and of course is
    often disabled using casts etc even today).

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
     
    Jorgen Grahn, Aug 3, 2011
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?iso-8859-1?B?bW9vcJk=?=
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    876
    Roedy Green
    Jan 2, 2006
  2. Otuatail

    Week of year to full Year

    Otuatail, Dec 8, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    981
    Toby A Inkster
    Dec 8, 2003
  3. *Prot3anThr3ad*

    old repository for old C++ source code

    *Prot3anThr3ad*, Sep 29, 2006, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    390
    *Prot3anThr3ad*
    Oct 2, 2006
  4. buck

    13 year old C source - Thanks to all

    buck, Jul 29, 2011, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    631
    Michael Press
    Aug 4, 2011
  5. Veerle
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    427
    niceguy
    Aug 20, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page