Storgae durations

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by jrdacc.i@gmail.com, Aug 16, 2008.

  1. Guest

    what is the difference between the tree storage
    durations(static,automatic and dynamic) in C?
     
    , Aug 16, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard Heathfield <> writes:

    > said:
    >
    >> what is the difference between the tree storage
    >> durations(static,automatic and dynamic) in C?

    >
    > Firstly, there are only two:


    Correction: there _were_ only two.

    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > 3.1.2.4 Storage durations of objects
    >
    > An object has a storage duration that determines its lifetime.
    > There are two storage durations: static and automatic.


    6.2.4 "Storage durations of objects" now says:

    An object has a storage duration that determines its lifetime. There
    are three storage durations: static, automatic, and
    allocated. Allocated storage is described in 7.20.3.

    How did C90 square there being only two with malloc?

    --
    Ben.
     
    Ben Bacarisse, Aug 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jacob navia Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > said:
    >
    >> what is the difference between the tree storage
    >> durations(static,automatic and dynamic) in C?

    >
    > Firstly, there are only two:
    >
    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > 3.1.2.4 Storage durations of objects
    >
    > An object has a storage duration that determines its lifetime.
    > There are two storage durations: static and automatic.
    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >


    This is wrong. Heathfield lives in the past so it is using a
    standard that is no longer current. The correct place to
    quote is the C standard 6.2.4 Storage durations of objects:

    An object has a storage duration that determines its lifetime. There are
    three storage durations: static, automatic, and allocated. Allocated
    storage is described in 7.20.3.




    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Aug 16, 2008
    #3
  4. Guest

    On Aug 16, 11:55 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > jacob navia said:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > This is wrong. Heathfield lives in the past so it is using a
    > > standard that is no longer current.

    >
    > No, Heathfield lives in the real world where almost no conforming C99
    > implementations exist, but where almost every platform in existence is
    > targetted by at least one of the very many conforming C90 implementations..
    > Heathfield refuses to live in a fantasy land in which the pretence is made
    > that non-portable constructs will work everywhere just because ISO says
    > that they are "standard".
    >


    How is that relevant in regard to what jacob said? He said the
    standard you referred to is no longer current. Whether C99 is portable
    is another matter, which is rather pointless to discuss with you, but
    let's give it a try:

    You say there are a lot more C90 implementations than there are C99
    implementations, so C90 is more portable. That's true. But whether C99
    is portable in *general* is something different, which is subject to
    each person's definition and standards of portability. For people not
    trying to run programs on toasters, C99 is surely portable enough.

    Sebastian
     
    , Aug 16, 2008
    #4
  5. On 16 Aug 2008 at 16:55, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > jacob navia said:
    >> This is wrong. Heathfield lives in the past so it is using a
    >> standard that is no longer current.

    >
    > No, Heathfield lives in the real world where almost no conforming C99
    > implementations exist, but where almost every platform in existence is
    > targetted by at least one of the very many conforming C90 implementations.


    This is a lie. For example, (as you well know) your interlocutor above
    has written a C99 implementation for Win32.

    > Heathfield refuses to live in a fantasy land in which the pretence is
    > made that non-portable constructs will work everywhere just because
    > ISO says that they are "standard".


    You'd rather pretend that the current standard doesn't exist, and
    deliberately give false out information to people, all to satisfy your
    nostalgia for a standard that came in at the time of the first gulf war.
     
    Antoninus Twink, Aug 16, 2008
    #5
  6. James Kuyper Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > said:
    >
    >> what is the difference between the tree storage
    >> durations(static,automatic and dynamic) in C?

    >
    > Firstly, there are only two:
    >
    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > 3.1.2.4 Storage durations of objects
    >
    > An object has a storage duration that determines its lifetime.
    > There are two storage durations: static and automatic.
    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    It may say that in the C90 standard (I don't have a copy) but C99 has
    three - the third one is "allocated", which corresponds to the OP's
    "dynamic". I'll admit that C90 is more widely supported than C99, but if
    you are sincerely sorry that adoption of C99 has gone as slowly as it
    has, you should at least mention it's features when answering questions
    like this one which do not specify a specific version of the standard.

    If C90 didn't have "allocated" storage duration, how were the
    corresponding concepts described in C90?
     
    James Kuyper, Aug 16, 2008
    #6
  7. On 16 Aug 2008 at 17:32, wrote:
    > How is that relevant in regard to what jacob said?


    He knows full well that it isn't. In case you haven't worked it out, his
    only aim in this thread is to further his nasty campaign against Jacob.
    He's not interested in addressing Jacob's valid and well-made points. In
    fact, his isn't interested in much at all except preening his vast ego -
    surely one of the reasons he despises Jacob so much is that Jacob has a
    knack of pricking Heathfield's vanity and getting to the heart of his
    bluster and nonsense.
     
    Antoninus Twink, Aug 16, 2008
    #7
  8. Huibert Bol Guest

    James Kuyper wrote:

    > If C90 didn't have "allocated" storage duration, how were the corresponding
    > concepts described in C90?


    This was addressed in DR138, the real question is: does this make it part
    of the offical standard.

    --
    Huibert
    "Okay... really not something I needed to see." --Raven
     
    Huibert Bol, Aug 16, 2008
    #8
  9. On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:02:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

    >what is the difference between the tree storage
    >durations(static,automatic and dynamic) in C?


    google for n1256 and read the reference yourself rather than depend on
    others quoting or paraphrasing the standard, perhaps erroneously. Keep
    it around to answer your next homework question also.

    Then if you have a question about the meaning of a particular section,
    ask here and many will be glad to describe what it means to them.

    --
    Remove del for email
     
    Barry Schwarz, Aug 16, 2008
    #9
  10. Guest

    On Aug 16, 1:55 pm, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 16, 11:55 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > >> jacob navia said:

    >
    > >> <snip>

    >
    > >> > This is wrong. Heathfield lives in the past so it is using a
    > >> > standard that is no longer current.

    >
    > >> No, Heathfield lives in the real world where almost no conforming C99
    > >> implementations exist, but where almost every platform in existence is
    > >> targetted by at least one of the very many conforming C90
    > >> implementations. Heathfield refuses to live in a fantasy land in which
    > >> the pretence is made that non-portable constructs will work everywhere
    > >> just because ISO says that they are "standard".

    >
    > > How is that relevant in regard to what jacob said?

    >
    > He claimed I was living in the past. I'm not. I'm living in the present.
    > He, on the other hand, appears to be living in hope.
    >


    In hope of what?

    > > He said the
    > > standard you referred to is no longer current.

    >
    > Yes, he did, and yes, he's de jure right. But he's de facto wrong.
    >


    Either he's right (which he is), or he's not. What do you mean by "de
    facto"?

    > > Whether C99 is portable
    > > is another matter, which is rather pointless to discuss with you,

    >
    > I suppose it depends on what you mean by "portable". If by "portable" you
    > mean "implementations exist for four or five platforms",


    I don't know exactly which platforms are supported by C99
    implementations, but let's name five (random) platforms for
    illustration:

    - Windows
    - Linux
    - Mac OS X
    - Solaris
    - HP-UX

    By what I'd call "common standards," something that is portable among
    that much platforms is very portable.

    > then yes, of
    > course C99 is portable. But if you mean "implementations exist for the
    > vast majority of platforms", then I would argue that it isn't.
    >


    That in turn depends on what you mean by "the vast majority of
    platforms." Do you mean "from microchips to supercomputers"? Or do you
    mean "any popular OS"? I would expect most people in general to mean
    the second.

    > > but let's give it a try:

    >
    > > You say there are a lot more C90 implementations than there are C99
    > > implementations, so C90 is more portable. That's true. But whether C99
    > > is portable in *general* is something different, which is subject to
    > > each person's definition and standards of portability. For people not
    > > trying to run programs on toasters, C99 is surely portable enough.

    >
    > Do *you* use a conforming C99 implementation? You probably don't - but
    > maybe, just maybe, you do. Most people, however, don't.
    >


    Like I've told you before, I use GCC's non-conforming C99
    implementation. But the important thing is not so much the conformance
    level, but the compiler's usability. For example, lcc-win doesn't
    conform, but it has the most useful set of extensions I've ever seen
    on any compiler. In contrast, the other day there was a discussion on
    another group where someone said that, because of undefined behavior,
    a program could erase all files in the hard disk. So a compiler could
    generate instructions to erase all files in the hard disk whenever the
    program it is compiling makes a construct that invokes undefined
    behavior, and that compiler would still conform to the standard! So
    you see, "conforming" != "perfect".

    Sebastian
     
    , Aug 16, 2008
    #10
  11. James Kuyper Guest

    Huibert Bol wrote:
    > James Kuyper wrote:
    >
    >> If C90 didn't have "allocated" storage duration, how were the corresponding
    >> concepts described in C90?

    >
    > This was addressed in DR138, the real question is: does this make it part
    > of the offical standard.


    What do you mean by that question? It most certainly already is a part
    of the official standard: 6.2.4p1: "There are three storage durations:
    static, automatic, and allocated."

    It's arguably the case that C99 is not the de facto standard, but it is
    most certainly the official standard.
     
    James Kuyper, Aug 16, 2008
    #11
  12. On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:54:07 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > said:
    >> I don't know exactly which platforms are supported by C99
    >> implementations,

    >
    > Then you are in no position to make an argument about C99's portability
    > or otherwise.
    >
    >> but let's name five (random) platforms for illustration:
    >>
    >> - Windows
    >> - Linux
    >> - Mac OS X
    >> - Solaris
    >> - HP-UX
    >>
    >> By what I'd call "common standards," something that is portable among
    >> that much platforms is very portable.

    >
    > I think the OS390 and VM/CMS folks might cough and splutter a bit if
    > they heard you say that. But since you don't actually know whether the
    > platforms you name have C99 implementations available for them, your
    > point lacks force.


    Intel's compiler is available for Windows and Linux, and the other three
    conform to SUSv3. In other words, the platforms all have conforming C99
    implementations.
     
    Harald van Dijk, Aug 16, 2008
    #12
  13. santosh Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > said:


    >> I don't know exactly which platforms are supported by C99
    >> implementations,

    >
    > Then you are in no position to make an argument about C99's
    > portability or otherwise.
    >
    >> but let's name five (random) platforms for
    >> illustration:
    >>
    >> - Windows
    >> - Linux
    >> - Mac OS X
    >> - Solaris
    >> - HP-UX
    >>
    >> By what I'd call "common standards," something that is portable among
    >> that much platforms is very portable.

    >
    > I think the OS390 and VM/CMS folks might cough and splutter a bit if
    > they heard you say that. But since you don't actually know whether the
    > platforms you name have C99 implementations available for them, your
    > point lacks force.
    >
    >>> then yes, of
    >>> course C99 is portable. But if you mean "implementations exist for
    >>> the vast majority of platforms", then I would argue that it isn't.

    >>
    >> That in turn depends on what you mean by "the vast majority of
    >> platforms." Do you mean "from microchips to supercomputers"? Or do
    >> you mean "any popular OS"? I would expect most people in general to
    >> mean the second.

    >
    > I would certainly include mainframes and mid-range computers, which
    > you seem to have ignored completely. I would also include the more
    > powerful DSPs, the kind you find in home entertainment hardware
    > (set-top boxes, DVD players, etc). It is easy to dismiss these, but
    > they are powerful enough to run email clients, Web browsers, all kinds
    > of cool stuff. Not a market one ought to dismiss too easily.


    But how often is it the case that a single application needs to be
    portable across mainframes, desktops, and DSPs? Subroutines could
    easily port across all these (depending of course on what exactly the
    routine does), but I have yet to encounter a complete, real world,
    application that ports without modification to all these diverse
    systems.

    >> But the important thing is not so much the conformance
    >> level,

    >
    > The important thing to you, maybe - but here, we discuss ISO C, not
    > notquiteISO C.


    Actually to me, both you and Sebastian seem to be arguing for the
    utility of non-ISO C. :)

    <snip>
     
    santosh, Aug 16, 2008
    #13
  14. Guest

    On Aug 16, 2:54 pm, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > >> said:
    > >> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > >> >> jacob navia said:
    > >> >> <snip>
    > >> >> > This is wrong. Heathfield lives in the past so it is using a
    > >> >> > standard that is no longer current.

    >
    > >> >> No, Heathfield lives in the real world where almost no conforming C99
    > >> >> implementations exist, but where almost every platform in existence
    > >> >> is targetted by at least one of the very many conforming C90
    > >> >> implementations. Heathfield refuses to live in a fantasy land in
    > >> >> which the pretence is made that non-portable constructs will work
    > >> >> everywhere just because ISO says that they are "standard".

    >
    > >> > How is that relevant in regard to what jacob said?

    >
    > >> He claimed I was living in the past. I'm not. I'm living in the present.
    > >> He, on the other hand, appears to be living in hope.

    >
    > > In hope of what?

    >
    > C99, presumably.
    >
    > >> > He said the
    > >> > standard you referred to is no longer current.

    >
    > >> Yes, he did, and yes, he's de jure right. But he's de facto wrong.

    >
    > > Either he's right (which he is), or he's not.

    >
    > He's right only in a completely useless and almost meaningless way.
    >


    How can someone be right in a meaningless way? Again, either someone
    is right, or not. It's *that* simple.

    > > What do you mean by "de facto"?

    >
    > "de jure": in law.
    > "de facto": in reality.
    >
    > A government passes a law that as of now, nobody may breathe. De jure,
    > people no longer breathe. De facto, however, they still do.


    In other words, they are committing a crime. I fail to see how that
    relates to what we're discussing here.

    > De jure, C99
    > is the C Standard. De facto, C90 is the C Standard.
    >


    They're both C standards; the latter is the *current* standard; is
    that so hard to understand for you? Maybe, like Twink said, you'd
    rather ignore the current standard. In any case, your above statement
    makes no sense whatsoever.

    > >> > Whether C99 is portable
    > >> > is another matter, which is rather pointless to discuss with you,

    >
    > >> I suppose it depends on what you mean by "portable". If by "portable"
    > >> you mean "implementations exist for four or five platforms",

    >
    > > I don't know exactly which platforms are supported by C99
    > > implementations,

    >
    > Then you are in no position to make an argument about C99's portability or
    > otherwise.
    >


    I am if my standards of portability comprise an implementation being
    portable among a number of fairly popular and widely used OSs, and if
    there are implementations for C99 that target those platforms.

    > > but let's name five (random) platforms for
    > > illustration:

    >
    > >   - Windows
    > >   - Linux
    > >   - Mac OS X
    > >   - Solaris
    > >   - HP-UX

    >
    > > By what I'd call "common standards," something that is portable among
    > > that much platforms is very portable.

    >
    > I think the OS390 and VM/CMS folks might cough and splutter a bit if they
    > heard you say that.


    Surely, they probably have different opinions on portability.

    > But since you don't actually know whether the
    > platforms you name have C99 implementations available for them, your point
    > lacks force.
    >


    Again:

    Not if my standards of portability comprise an implementation being
    portable among a number of fairly popular and widely used OSs, and if
    there are implementations for C99 that target those platforms.

    > >> then yes, of
    > >> course C99 is portable. But if you mean "implementations exist for the
    > >> vast majority of platforms", then I would argue that it isn't.

    >
    > > That in turn depends on what you mean by "the vast majority of
    > > platforms." Do you mean "from microchips to supercomputers"? Or do you
    > > mean "any popular OS"? I would expect most people in general to mean
    > > the second.

    >
    > I would certainly include mainframes and mid-range computers, which you
    > seem to have ignored completely.


    Yes, because they are of no interest to me.

    > I would also include the more powerful
    > DSPs, the kind you find in home entertainment hardware (set-top boxes, DVD
    > players, etc). It is easy to dismiss these, but they are powerful enough
    > to run email clients, Web browsers, all kinds of cool stuff. Not a market
    > one ought to dismiss too easily.
    >
    > >> > but let's give it a try:

    >
    > >> > You say there are a lot more C90 implementations than there are C99
    > >> > implementations, so C90 is more portable. That's true. But whether C99
    > >> > is portable in *general* is something different, which is subject to
    > >> > each person's definition and standards of portability. For people not
    > >> > trying to run programs on toasters, C99 is surely portable enough.

    >
    > >> Do *you* use a conforming C99 implementation? You probably don't - but
    > >> maybe, just maybe, you do. Most people, however, don't.

    >
    > > Like I've told you before, I use GCC's non-conforming C99
    > > implementation.

    >
    > So no, then. If C99 isn't even portable to *your* desktop, it is hard to
    > see how you can sustain a claim to general portability.
    >


    I use C99 for my desktop. Where do you get that "C99 isn't even
    portable to my desktop"?

    > > But the important thing is not so much the conformance
    > > level,

    >
    > The important thing to you, maybe - but here, we discuss ISO C, not
    > notquiteISO C.
    >


    I'm not discussing "notquiteISO C." I'm stating that the important
    thing is not so much the conformance level, but the compiler's
    usability.

    > > but the compiler's usability. For example, lcc-win doesn't
    > > conform, but it has the most useful set of extensions I've ever seen
    > > on any compiler.

    >
    > If it doesn't implement the language correctly, the extensions are a moot
    > point.
    >


    That's your opinion (and apparently only yours).

    > > In contrast, the other day there was a discussion on
    > > another group where someone said that, because of undefined behavior,
    > > a program could erase all files in the hard disk.

    >
    > Yes, that is one legal outcome of undefined behaviour.
    >
    > > So a compiler could
    > > generate instructions to erase all files in the hard disk whenever the
    > > program it is compiling makes a construct that invokes undefined
    > > behavior, and that compiler would still conform to the standard!

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > > So you see, "conforming" != "perfect".

    >
    > You seem to be arguing that it's the compiler's fault if the program is
    > incorrectly written. I don't agree.
    >


    It's the compiler's decision what to do when a has something in it
    invokes undefined behavior. If a compiler does what I mentioned above
    in a case where a program does something that invokes undefined
    behavior, I'd deem that compiler useless.

    Sebastian
     
    , Aug 16, 2008
    #14
  15. jacob navia Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > said:
    >> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>> said:

    >> I don't know exactly which platforms are supported by C99
    >> implementations,

    >
    > Then you are in no position to make an argument about C99's portability or
    > otherwise.
    >
    >> but let's name five (random) platforms for
    >> illustration:
    >>
    >> - Windows
    >> - Linux
    >> - Mac OS X
    >> - Solaris
    >> - HP-UX
    >>
    >> By what I'd call "common standards," something that is portable among
    >> that much platforms is very portable.

    >
    > I think the OS390 and VM/CMS folks might cough and splutter a bit if they
    > heard you say that.


    Heathfield is again speaking pure nonsense.

    C99 is available for the z/VM operating system
    (IBM Mainframes).

    http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/czvm/

    <quote>
    Supports the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 international standard (C99)
    <end quote>

    IBM supports C99 in all its mainline compilers

    The fact that Heathfield doesn't know what he is speaking about
    doesn't mean that there isn't any C99 compiler for that platform.


    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Aug 16, 2008
    #15
  16. Ian Collins Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > said:


    >> I don't know exactly which platforms are supported by C99
    >> implementations,

    >
    > Then you are in no position to make an argument about C99's portability or
    > otherwise.
    >
    >> but let's name five (random) platforms for
    >> illustration:
    >>
    >> - Windows
    >> - Linux
    >> - Mac OS X
    >> - Solaris
    >> - HP-UX
    >>
    >> By what I'd call "common standards," something that is portable among
    >> that much platforms is very portable.

    >
    > I think the OS390 and VM/CMS folks might cough and splutter a bit if they
    > heard you say that. But since you don't actually know whether the
    > platforms you name have C99 implementations available for them, your point
    > lacks force.
    >

    How do you know that?

    >> Like I've told you before, I use GCC's non-conforming C99
    >> implementation.

    >
    > So no, then. If C99 isn't even portable to *your* desktop, it is hard to
    > see how you can sustain a claim to general portability.
    >

    How do you know that? How do you know he doesn't use one of the 5
    platforms he mentions, but prefers gcc?

    >> But the important thing is not so much the conformance
    >> level,

    >
    > The important thing to you, maybe - but here, we discuss ISO C, not
    > notquiteISO C.
    >

    Which is why I prefer to use 'c99' on my platform of choice.

    If I'm developing code for a small embedded target or updating a library
    component, I'll stick with 'c89'. Portability is relative, most code I
    write these days is portable within POSIX systems, so C99 if a fair choice.

    --
    Ian Collins.
     
    Ian Collins, Aug 16, 2008
    #16
  17. jacob navia Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >> But the important thing is not so much the conformance
    >> level,

    >
    > The important thing to you, maybe - but here, we discuss ISO C, not
    > notquiteISO C.
    >


    Yes, sure.

    But with ISO C you do not mean ISO C, but an
    obsolete version of ISO C that suits your tastes.

    So, here, you say, "we" discuss whatever
    "you" like.

    GREAT Heathfield.

    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Aug 16, 2008
    #17
  18. On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:06, Harald van Dijk wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:54:07 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >> But since you don't actually know whether the platforms you name have
    >> C99 implementations available for them, your point lacks force.

    >
    > Intel's compiler is available for Windows and Linux, and the other
    > three conform to SUSv3. In other words, the platforms all have
    > conforming C99 implementations.


    I don't believe for a second that Heathfield wasn't fully aware of that.

    He's a proven liar who chooses to spread FUD about the current C
    standards for his own reasons.
     
    Antoninus Twink, Aug 16, 2008
    #18
  19. jacob navia Guest

    Antoninus Twink wrote:
    > On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:06, Harald van Dijk wrote:
    >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:54:07 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>> But since you don't actually know whether the platforms you name have
    >>> C99 implementations available for them, your point lacks force.

    >> Intel's compiler is available for Windows and Linux, and the other
    >> three conform to SUSv3. In other words, the platforms all have
    >> conforming C99 implementations.

    >
    > I don't believe for a second that Heathfield wasn't fully aware of that.
    >
    > He's a proven liar who chooses to spread FUD about the current C
    > standards for his own reasons.
    >


    He said that C99 wasn't available for IBM mainframes, what
    is a lie. See:

    http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/czvm/

    <quote>
    Supports the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 international standard (C99)
    <end quote>

    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Aug 16, 2008
    #19
  20. On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:25, santosh wrote:
    > But how often is it the case that a single application needs to be
    > portable across mainframes, desktops, and DSPs? Subroutines could
    > easily port across all these (depending of course on what exactly the
    > routine does), but I have yet to encounter a complete, real world,
    > application that ports without modification to all these diverse
    > systems.


    An extremely sensible and well-made point, and one that flies in the
    face of the clc "regulars'" main dogma.
     
    Antoninus Twink, Aug 16, 2008
    #20
    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. Durations in Java

    , Apr 16, 2008, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    363
    kernelerror
    Apr 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page