473,854 Members | 1,834 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

A C tutorial

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

I have added quite a bit of material, and I would be
glad if people in this group give it a try and tell me if
I am saying nonsense somewhere.

Beware that I am not very orthodox, hence my tutorial
(and the associated compiler) is not just a tutorial about
ANSI C, but covers things like operator overloading and
other heresies :-)

And since it is running in a specific OS, windows
programming makes for quite a lot of pages. If you
use another OS however, the first part is (almost)
straight C.

jacob

Nov 14 '05
156 7739
In <40******@news2 .power.net.uk> Richard Heathfield <in*****@addres s.co.uk.invalid > writes:
Dan Pop wrote:
In <40******@news2 .power.net.uk> Richard Heathfield
<in*****@addres s.co.uk.invalid > writes:
Dan Pop wrote:

In <c0**********@s parta.btinterne t.com> Richard Heathfield
<do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:

>I don't have a problem trusting gcc.

On the contrary, gcc is the ideal target for pulling such a trick,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
precisely because its code is widely available and most people use gcc
to build gcc.

Are you claiming that gcc contains a back door? If so, do you have any
evidence to support that claim?


I am claiming exactly what I have written above.


Presumably, then, you are not claiming that gcc contains a back door. Fine.
So - I /had/ no reason not to trust gcc, and I /still have/ no reason not
to trust gcc. Nothing has changed, then. Good.


My claim is that gcc is the ideal target for such an attack. If, from my
claim you infer that you have no reason not to blindly trust gcc, then
fine. But then, you'll look like the king of the hypocrites when claiming
that you distrust software you cannot check for malicious code (an
attacked gcc is a piece of software you cannot check for malicious code,
even if the sources are available, as long as you use gcc to rebuild the
program).

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Nov 14 '05 #81
In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
Da*****@cern.c h (Dan Pop) writes:
In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
Da*****@cern .ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:

>Da*****@ce rn.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>
>> In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
>>
>>>Da*****@ cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>>
>>>> In <c0*********@he rcules.btintern et.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW I bet you a groat you don't scan most programs for malicious code,
>>>>>> so your argument is spurious.
>>>>>
>>>>>I disagree that the argument is spurious. It's true that I don't scan most
>>>>>progra ms for malicious code; I don't have to, because - since they're Open
>>>>>Sour ce - lots of people have done this already,
>>>>
>>>> How do you know it? If everyone reasons like you, no one is actually
>>>> doing it :-) ^^
>>>
>>>For the record, I often read the source code of Free Software, which
>>>disprove s that /no one/ is doing it. :) ^^^^^
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>> Do you know what "if" means in English?
>
>Suffice it to say that what I wrote contains no indication that I don't.
>If you disagree, please be more elaborate.

Reread the underlined text above and explain what it was supposed to
mean.

The underlined text is not a complete sentence and was therefore not
supposed to mean anything by itself. Only the whole sentence was
supposed to have meaning.


Then, pray tell, what was the whole sentence supposed to mean?


It was supposed to mean that the individual making the statement ("I")
many times ("often") systematically looks at ("read[s]") computer
programs ("Software") , which have a license that provides certain rights
("Free"), in their preferred form for studying and modifying their
behavior ("source code"), and this fact demonstrates that it is false
("disproves" ) that less than a single individual ("no one") takes steps
to find malicious code in said programs ("is doing it").


OK, so you're confirming that you don't understand the word "if".

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Nov 14 '05 #82
Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
Da*****@cern. ch (Dan Pop) writes:
In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:

Da*****@cer n.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

> In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
>
>>Da*****@c ern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>
>>> In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
>>>
>>>>Da***** @cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> In <c0*********@he rcules.btintern et.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mar k McIntyre wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW I bet you a groat you don't scan most programs for malicious code,
>>>>>>> so your argument is spurious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I disagree that the argument is spurious. It's true that I don't scan most
>>>>>>progr ams for malicious code; I don't have to, because - since they're Open
>>>>>>Sourc e - lots of people have done this already,
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know it? If everyone reasons like you, no one is actually
>>>>> doing it :-) ^^
>>>>
>>>>For the record, I often read the source code of Free Software, which
>>>>disprov es that /no one/ is doing it. :) ^^^^^
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>>> Do you know what "if" means in English?
>>
>>Suffice it to say that what I wrote contains no indication that I don't.
>>If you disagree, please be more elaborate.
>
> Reread the underlined text above and explain what it was supposed to
> mean.

The underlined text is not a complete sentence and was therefore not
supposed to mean anything by itself. Only the whole sentence was
supposed to have meaning.

Then, pray tell, what was the whole sentence supposed to mean?


It was supposed to mean that the individual making the statement ("I")
many times ("often") systematically looks at ("read[s]") computer
programs ("Software") , which have a license that provides certain rights
("Free"), in their preferred form for studying and modifying their
behavior ("source code"), and this fact demonstrates that it is false
("disproves ") that less than a single individual ("no one") takes steps
to find malicious code in said programs ("is doing it").


OK, so you're confirming that you don't understand the word "if".


I have done no such thing. It does not follow from my assertion that at
least one person checks source code for malicious code that I didn't
understand your statement. The only thing that does actually follow is
that it is false that everyone reasons like Richard Heathfield.

Since you have either failed or refused to explain what indicates that
I didn't understand the word "if", I can only concluse that even you
cannot find any such indication yourself.

Martin
Nov 14 '05 #83
In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
Da*****@cern.c h (Dan Pop) writes:
In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
Da*****@cern .ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:

>Da*****@ce rn.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>
>> In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
>>
>>>Da*****@ cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>>
>>>> In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Da**** *@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In <c0*********@he rcules.btintern et.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ma rk McIntyre wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW I bet you a groat you don't scan most programs for malicious code,
>>>>>>>> so your argument is spurious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I disagree that the argument is spurious. It's true that I don't scan most
>>>>>>>prog rams for malicious code; I don't have to, because - since they're Open
>>>>>>>Sour ce - lots of people have done this already,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know it? If everyone reasons like you, no one is actually
>>>>>> doing it :-) ^^
>>>>>
>>>>>For the record, I often read the source code of Free Software, which
>>>>>dispro ves that /no one/ is doing it. :) ^^^^^
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>>>> Do you know what "if" means in English?
>>>
>>>Suffic e it to say that what I wrote contains no indication that I don't.
>>>If you disagree, please be more elaborate.
>>
>> Reread the underlined text above and explain what it was supposed to
>> mean.
>
>The underlined text is not a complete sentence and was therefore not
>supposed to mean anything by itself. Only the whole sentence was
>supposed to have meaning.

Then, pray tell, what was the whole sentence supposed to mean?

It was supposed to mean that the individual making the statement ("I")
many times ("often") systematically looks at ("read[s]") computer
programs ("Software") , which have a license that provides certain rights
("Free"), in their preferred form for studying and modifying their
behavior ("source code"), and this fact demonstrates that it is false
("disproves" ) that less than a single individual ("no one") takes steps
to find malicious code in said programs ("is doing it").
OK, so you're confirming that you don't understand the word "if".


I have done no such thing. It does not follow from my assertion that at
least one person checks source code for malicious code that I didn't
understand your statement. The only thing that does actually follow is
that it is false that everyone reasons like Richard Heathfield.


But, since no one claimed or implied that everyone reasons like
Richard Heathfield, there was *nothing* to be disproved. Since you
seem to be believe that you have disproved something, the only conclusion
is that you don't understand the word "if".
Since you have either failed or refused to explain what indicates that
I didn't understand the word "if", I can only concluse that even you
cannot find any such indication yourself.


See above.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Nov 14 '05 #84
Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
Da*****@cern. ch (Dan Pop) writes:
In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:

Da*****@cer n.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

> In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
>
>>Da*****@c ern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>
>>> In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
>>>
>>>>Da***** @cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> In <c0************ *@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <ex************ ****@zero-based.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Da*** **@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In <c0*********@he rcules.btintern et.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mar k McIntyre wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW I bet you a groat you don't scan most programs for malicious code,
>>>>>>>>> so your argument is spurious.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I disagree that the argument is spurious. It's true that I don't scan most
>>>>>>>>pro grams for malicious code; I don't have to, because - since they're Open
>>>>>>>>Sou rce - lots of people have done this already,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know it? If everyone reasons like you, no one is actually
>>>>>>> doing it :-) ^^
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For the record, I often read the source code of Free Software, which
>>>>>>dispr oves that /no one/ is doing it. :) ^^^^^
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>>>>> Do you know what "if" means in English?
>>>>
>>>>Suffi ce it to say that what I wrote contains no indication that I don't.
>>>>If you disagree, please be more elaborate.
>>>
>>> Reread the underlined text above and explain what it was supposed to
>>> mean.
>>
>>The underlined text is not a complete sentence and was therefore not
>>suppose d to mean anything by itself. Only the whole sentence was
>>suppose d to have meaning.
>
> Then, pray tell, what was the whole sentence supposed to mean?

It was supposed to mean that the individual making the statement ("I")
many times ("often") systematically looks at ("read[s]") computer
programs ("Software") , which have a license that provides certain rights
("Free"), in their preferred form for studying and modifying their
behavior ("source code"), and this fact demonstrates that it is false
("disproves ") that less than a single individual ("no one") takes steps
to find malicious code in said programs ("is doing it").

OK, so you're confirming that you don't understand the word "if".


I have done no such thing. It does not follow from my assertion that at
least one person checks source code for malicious code that I didn't
understand your statement. The only thing that does actually follow is
that it is false that everyone reasons like Richard Heathfield.


But, since no one claimed or implied that everyone reasons like
Richard Heathfield, there was *nothing* to be disproved. Since you
seem to be believe that you have disproved something, the only
conclusion is that you don't understand the word "if".


I have in fact disproved something, namely that no one checks source
code for malicious code. I have done so even though no one has claimed
or implied it, and I have never claimed or implied that anyone has
claimed or implied it.

You seem to believe that only things which have previously been claimed
or implied can be disproven. That is not the case.

Martin
Nov 14 '05 #85
Dan Pop wrote:
My claim is that gcc is the ideal target for such an attack. If, from my
claim you infer that you have no reason not to blindly trust gcc, then
fine. But then, you'll look like the king of the hypocrites when claiming
that you distrust software you cannot check for malicious code (an
attacked gcc is a piece of software you cannot check for malicious code,
even if the sources are available, as long as you use gcc to rebuild the
program).


King of the hypocrites? No, not really. You see, I don't distrust GNU. But I
/do/ distrust Adobe. I am confident of GNU's good intentions. I am not
confident of Adobe's good intentions.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Nov 14 '05 #86
Thomas Stegen CES2000 wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:

<shrug> It is claimed that PDF documents are in a portable document
format. That's what PDF /stands for/. And yet PDF is clearly /not/ a
portable format, requiring as it does special readers which are not
available on all platforms.
That is like saying C is not portable because you need special
software for each platform it needs to support.


And, in a way, that's true. (It's still /more/ portable than any other
language AFAIK.)
Tell me about one
platform which does not have and acrobat reader available and
you have ever found yourself in need of one.


<grin> That's easy; none, because I don't use PDF files (with the single
exception of the ISO C99 document, and I'm converting that to text anyway,
albeit slowly). Therefore, I don't need Acrobat Reader.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Nov 14 '05 #87
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:49:20 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
<shrug> It is claimed that PDF documents are in a portable document format.
That's what PDF /stands for/. And yet PDF is clearly /not/ a portable
format, requiring as it does special readers which are not available on all
platforms.
I understand your point, I just think you're being blinded by
anti-proprietary-ism if you see what I mean.

Text files are no more portable than pdf, since they too require special
readers. You may disagree with this, but remember that even cat and more
are file readers, and without them you could not read a text file on unix.
if I can't read it, it's useless. Useless *to me*, that is.


And chinese text is useless to me. Your point is.... :-)
And by the way, that /was/ text....


To you, perhaps. Not to me.


my point exactly !

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.c om/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc. html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Nov 14 '05 #88
In article <c0**********@s unnews.cern.ch> , Da*****@cern.ch says...
Please elaborate. Which other pieces of Adobe software have bitten you
with their malicious code?


Perhaps a reminder that recently Adobe has gotten some flack for
introducing some "malware" into Acrobat reader that makes it
absolutely refuse to render certain graphic images, such as
US currency. No warning, no disclosure, it's just there. It
makes it load much, much slower while it scans the file looking
for such on each "fopen()".

Here is an example of such discussions:

http://www.pdfzone.com/news/767-PDFzone_news.html

--
Randy Howard
2reply remove FOOBAR

Nov 14 '05 #89
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:49:20 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
<shrug> It is claimed that PDF documents are in a portable document
format. That's what PDF /stands for/. And yet PDF is clearly /not/ a
portable format, requiring as it does special readers which are not
available on all platforms.


I understand your point, I just think you're being blinded by
anti-proprietary-ism if you see what I mean.

Text files are no more portable than pdf, since they too require special
readers. You may disagree with this, but remember that even cat and more
are file readers, and without them you could not read a text file on unix.


Yes, I could - using vim, or emacs, or ed, or less, or joe, or pico, or even
grep! Or I could simply write a simple cat:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int ch;
while((ch = getchar()) != EOF)
{
putchar(ch);
}
return 0;
}

You see, text fits in with the C model very well indeed. It's easy to write
text processors in C.

if I can't read it, it's useless. Useless *to me*, that is.


And chinese text is useless to me. Your point is.... :-)


....that the fewer constraints one puts on one's intended audience, the wider
that audience can be.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Nov 14 '05 #90

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

1
2935
by: Rhino | last post by:
Can anyone point me to a good free XSLT Tutorial online? I looked for some a few months ago and didn't find anything very good. I'm hoping some of the experts here can point me to a good XSLT tutorial..... -- Rhino --- rhino1 AT sympatico DOT ca "There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it
15
4243
by: binnyva | last post by:
Hello Everyone, I have just compleated a JavaScript tutorial and publishing the draft(or the beta version, as I like to call it) for review. This is not open to public yet. The Tutorial is avaliable at... http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial/ If any of you could spare the time, please have a look at my tutorial
18
1969
by: Xah Lee | last post by:
i've started to read python tutorial recently. http://python.org/doc/2.3.4/tut/tut.html Here are some quick critique: quick example: If the input string is too long, they don't truncate it, but return it unchanged; this will mess up your column lay-out but that's usually better than the alternative, which would be lying about a value. (If you really want truncation you can always add a slice operation, as in
0
1788
by: Joe Mayo | last post by:
I've recently updated the C# Tutorial at C# Station with a new addition, Lesson 17: Enums. The C# Tutorial may be found at http://www.csharp-station.com/Tutorial.aspx. Other updates include: 1. Downloadable source code. 2. All example programs run on-line as NTD apps. 3. A support forum for discussing the Tutorial.
10
3096
by: Safalra | last post by:
When a poster in a forum I frequent said they were beginning to learn HTML, I thought I should direct them to a good HTML tutorial so that they wouldn't start using <blink> and the like. Remembering that this group has discussed HTML tutorials several times in the past, I searched the Google Groups archives, but all I can find are tutorials unfortunately demonstrating Flavell's Law. Searching the internet, the only accurate tutorials for...
11
2944
by: Magnus Lycka | last post by:
While the official Python Tutorial has served its purpose well, keeping it up to date is hardly anyones top priority, and there are others who passionately create really good Python tutorials on the web. I think 'A Byte of Python' by Swaroop C H is a good beginners tutorial, and 'Dive Into Python' by Mark Pilgrim is a good tutorial for more experienced programmers.
7
2261
by: Turbo | last post by:
I have a written a detailed html tutorial here:- http://sandy007smarty.seo.iitm.ac.in/2006/09/26/html-tutorial/ I know there are a couple of html tutorials out there. But its a tutorial without links!! Everything in one page. Please leave a comment if you like it.
2
2113
by: sara | last post by:
Hi All, I learned C++ long time ago and now I want to review all of its details in a short time like a week. I wonder if there is a good tutorial you know which I can read for this purpose. Thanks a lot.
0
9903
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
9752
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
11041
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10692
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
10373
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
1
7921
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
0
5946
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
1
4565
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
2
4167
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.