Screenshot instructions:
Windows
Mac
Red Hat Linux
Ubuntu
Click URL instructions:
Right-click on ad, choose "Copy Link", then paste here →
(This may not be possible with some types of ads)
You can subscribe to this list here.
2000 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(27) |
Apr
(107) |
May
(32) |
Jun
(45) |
Jul
(79) |
Aug
(61) |
Sep
(94) |
Oct
(89) |
Nov
(133) |
Dec
(45) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2001 |
Jan
(81) |
Feb
(57) |
Mar
(85) |
Apr
(80) |
May
(79) |
Jun
(85) |
Jul
(97) |
Aug
(104) |
Sep
(60) |
Oct
(82) |
Nov
(49) |
Dec
(57) |
2002 |
Jan
(46) |
Feb
(80) |
Mar
(112) |
Apr
(93) |
May
(72) |
Jun
(89) |
Jul
(118) |
Aug
(130) |
Sep
(67) |
Oct
(49) |
Nov
(58) |
Dec
(99) |
2003 |
Jan
(281) |
Feb
(141) |
Mar
(231) |
Apr
(109) |
May
(128) |
Jun
(166) |
Jul
(243) |
Aug
(64) |
Sep
(44) |
Oct
(67) |
Nov
(70) |
Dec
(68) |
2004 |
Jan
(71) |
Feb
(88) |
Mar
(60) |
Apr
(84) |
May
(79) |
Jun
(168) |
Jul
(92) |
Aug
(72) |
Sep
(51) |
Oct
(102) |
Nov
(35) |
Dec
(73) |
2005 |
Jan
(65) |
Feb
(48) |
Mar
(86) |
Apr
(64) |
May
(107) |
Jun
(93) |
Jul
(40) |
Aug
(117) |
Sep
(82) |
Oct
(65) |
Nov
(63) |
Dec
(85) |
2006 |
Jan
(36) |
Feb
(81) |
Mar
(74) |
Apr
(131) |
May
(92) |
Jun
(71) |
Jul
(71) |
Aug
(54) |
Sep
(26) |
Oct
(77) |
Nov
(55) |
Dec
(55) |
2007 |
Jan
(112) |
Feb
(88) |
Mar
(105) |
Apr
(46) |
May
(28) |
Jun
(53) |
Jul
(29) |
Aug
(34) |
Sep
(74) |
Oct
(83) |
Nov
(67) |
Dec
(39) |
2008 |
Jan
(40) |
Feb
(105) |
Mar
(42) |
Apr
(25) |
May
(91) |
Jun
(32) |
Jul
(47) |
Aug
(128) |
Sep
(188) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(19) |
Dec
(41) |
2009 |
Jan
(145) |
Feb
(88) |
Mar
(117) |
Apr
(38) |
May
(53) |
Jun
(9) |
Jul
(47) |
Aug
(10) |
Sep
(28) |
Oct
(65) |
Nov
(97) |
Dec
(36) |
2010 |
Jan
(55) |
Feb
(87) |
Mar
(81) |
Apr
(30) |
May
(37) |
Jun
(15) |
Jul
(85) |
Aug
(31) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(69) |
Nov
(69) |
Dec
(32) |
2011 |
Jan
(37) |
Feb
(49) |
Mar
(55) |
Apr
(27) |
May
(67) |
Jun
(30) |
Jul
(43) |
Aug
(73) |
Sep
(65) |
Oct
(89) |
Nov
(59) |
Dec
(15) |
2012 |
Jan
(27) |
Feb
(48) |
Mar
(14) |
Apr
(18) |
May
(38) |
Jun
(59) |
Jul
(46) |
Aug
(11) |
Sep
(21) |
Oct
(28) |
Nov
(18) |
Dec
(51) |
2013 |
Jan
(35) |
Feb
(68) |
Mar
(56) |
Apr
(21) |
May
(62) |
Jun
(43) |
Jul
(12) |
Aug
(34) |
Sep
(28) |
Oct
|
Nov
(11) |
Dec
(33) |
2014 |
Jan
(15) |
Feb
(36) |
Mar
(33) |
Apr
(45) |
May
(8) |
Jun
(52) |
Jul
(30) |
Aug
(7) |
Sep
(38) |
Oct
(76) |
Nov
(19) |
Dec
(26) |
2015 |
Jan
(67) |
Feb
(42) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(12) |
May
(13) |
Jun
(17) |
Jul
(10) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(26) |
Oct
(24) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(2) |
2016 |
Jan
(19) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(33) |
Apr
(56) |
May
(10) |
Jun
(12) |
Jul
(38) |
Aug
(69) |
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(7) |
Nov
(20) |
Dec
(26) |
2017 |
Jan
(10) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(4) |
May
(16) |
Jun
(13) |
Jul
(16) |
Aug
(25) |
Sep
|
Oct
(28) |
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
2018 |
Jan
(31) |
Feb
(24) |
Mar
(38) |
Apr
(18) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
2
|
3
(1) |
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
(1) |
8
(4) |
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
(3) |
14
|
15
|
16
(1) |
17
|
18
|
19
(3) |
20
(3) |
21
(5) |
22
(1) |
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
(1) |
29
(1) |
30
(2) |
31
(1) |
|
|
|
|
From: roelof 't Hooft <roelofh@it...> - 2012-01-20 12:40:49
|
Hi Maarten, On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 11:50 +0100, Maarten Brock wrote: > Hi Roelof, > > There is no reply-to address because the question was > posted in the Open Discussion forum. You get an email > from it probably because you are monitoring this forum. > The whole idea about a forum is that everyone can read > the contents, including your answers. If it was your > intent to answer the O/P only you can send him a > personal message. It was not my intention to answer the OP directly. I just clicked the reply button and expected it to have the email address set to sdcc-user@... not noreply@... > Otherwise post your reply in the forum > to which there probably was a link in the email > notification you received. The original post did not have a reply to at the bottom part of the email I received, just checked it again. Also your reply to the OP post does not have that. There is only something about monitoring the forum. My "complaint" which I sent to sdcc-user@... does indeed have the reply to at the bottom in the email I received from back from the forum. I hope that makes sense, otherwise we will do this in dutch, offline :-) roelof |
From: Maarten Brock <sourceforge.brock@ds...> - 2012-01-20 10:50:39
|
Hi Roelof, There is no reply-to address because the question was posted in the Open Discussion forum. You get an email from it probably because you are monitoring this forum. The whole idea about a forum is that everyone can read the contents, including your answers. If it was your intent to answer the O/P only you can send him a personal message. Otherwise post your reply in the forum to which there probably was a link in the email notification you received. Greets, Maarten > Hi moderator of this group, > > Why is the reply-to address set to noreply@... ? > Or the better question is, why is the reply-to field removed ? > (I do not see it in the email headers) > > I posted a response to this question about _bit keyword > and of course it did not go through because I did not > notice the wrong reply address, annoying. > > roelof > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 20:47 -0800, SourceForge.net wrote: > > please any one help me with this error > > Start by reading the manual, in particular this page : > http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/doc/sdccman.html/node59.html#SECTION00441700000000000000 > > Or look at a processor header file like this : > less /opt/sdcc/share/sdcc/include/mcs51/p89lpc938.h > (I keep my compiler in /opt/, you might find the header > files in /usr/local/share/sdcc/include/mcs51/) > > There is all the information you need to solve your > problem. > > Hint : you do not need the "__at (0xyy)" to get your > example compiling. The __at "command" is used to get > access to a bit in a SFR for instance. The compiler > will place your bit definition at the start of the > RAM bit addresses which starts at 0x20. > > roelof |
From: roelof 't Hooft <roelofh@it...> - 2012-01-20 10:25:11
|
Hi moderator of this group, Why is the reply-to address set to noreply@... ? Or the better question is, why is the reply-to field removed ? (I do not see it in the email headers) I posted a response to this question about _bit keyword and of course it did not go through because I did not notice the wrong reply address, annoying. roelof ------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 20:47 -0800, SourceForge.net wrote: > please any one help me with this error Start by reading the manual, in particular this page : http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/doc/sdccman.html/node59.html#SECTION00441700000000000000 Or look at a processor header file like this : less /opt/sdcc/share/sdcc/include/mcs51/p89lpc938.h (I keep my compiler in /opt/, you might find the header files in /usr/local/share/sdcc/include/mcs51/) There is all the information you need to solve your problem. Hint : you do not need the "__at (0xyy)" to get your example compiling. The __at "command" is used to get access to a bit in a SFR for instance. The compiler will place your bit definition at the start of the RAM bit addresses which starts at 0x20. roelof |