Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #12096 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sheky <shekhar07.nitdgp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-12-06 08:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2011-12-06 14:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 133 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
C++ source code compilation Sheky <shekhar07.nitdgp@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 08:49 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 17:06 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-07 07:39 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 14:11 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 17:37 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-12-07 12:28 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-07 11:04 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-07 19:53 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-07 20:41 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-08 19:48 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-07 14:56 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-12-07 16:09 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 22:27 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-08 09:28 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 13:39 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 06:26 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 10:55 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-08 03:41 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 13:42 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 13:56 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 14:11 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 14:21 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 08:38 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 00:39 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 00:31 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-09 12:12 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-08 08:56 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-09 05:23 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 14:16 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-12-08 08:02 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-08 13:18 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-12-09 11:43 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-09 17:24 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-12-09 18:06 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 17:39 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 18:02 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-07 14:58 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 22:20 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 22:42 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 01:54 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-12-07 16:55 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 22:58 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-12-07 20:52 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 05:09 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 05:15 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-12-08 11:37 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 00:45 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-10 21:46 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-12-11 16:01 +0100
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 01:59 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-08 09:35 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-12-08 12:43 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 06:31 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-09 19:40 +1300
Re: C++ source code compilation gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 23:47 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-12-09 02:29 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> - 2011-12-09 07:23 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 23:46 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 09:24 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 11:01 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 12:23 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 10:58 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 12:35 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 12:44 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-09 04:55 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 14:20 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 14:33 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 14:58 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 15:11 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-10 07:59 +1300
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 15:09 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 19:36 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 19:53 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-10 10:03 +1300
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 21:10 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-09 14:06 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 23:04 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 23:15 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 23:37 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 01:51 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-10 09:51 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 13:50 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 08:53 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 20:17 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 12:37 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 13:45 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-10 13:49 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 14:37 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 08:55 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 14:07 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 14:28 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 14:50 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 14:54 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 15:17 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 18:13 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 18:36 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 22:34 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 22:46 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 23:25 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 23:30 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 03:23 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 09:12 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-12 10:05 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 12:05 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-12 12:58 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 13:29 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 20:33 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-11 07:14 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 09:07 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> - 2011-12-10 14:52 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 15:24 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 09:05 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 09:01 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 20:22 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-12 10:11 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 15:08 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-09 15:08 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-08 02:53 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-08 05:16 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-08 03:50 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 14:01 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 06:35 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 11:06 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 12:38 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2011-12-11 12:41 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 21:02 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 02:19 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-11 20:02 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2011-12-06 09:15 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Sheky <shekhar07.nitdgp@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 10:29 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-06 12:39 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-12-06 13:51 -0500
Re: C++ source code compilation Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2011-12-06 14:47 -0800
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 03:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jc17of$20c9$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12323 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:YaednbsOZ5EHdn7TnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 10/12/2011 23:25, Paul <pchrist wrote: >> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:Q4Kdncar_4SufH7TnZ2dnUVZ8nednZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 10/12/2011 22:34, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:lO6dnTLADLEBO37TnZ2dnUVZ8lydnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>> On 10/12/2011 18:13, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>> news:GqadnSWZt-aY5X7TnZ2dnUVZ8n6dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>> On 10/12/2011 14:54, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>>>>> "relocatable machine code" seems to be your phrase for the year. It >>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>> make any difference if you add the word "relocatable" you are still >>>>>>>> suggesting the file is machine code because it contains machine >>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is a lie and you know it troll. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You seem to have said it's machine code because it contains some >>>>>> machine >>>>>> code. >>>>>> So lets clarify things here. Are you saying an object file, which is >>>>>> the >>>>>> direct output from a compiler, is machine code or isn't machine code >>>>>> now? >>>>> >>>>> I have *never* said that an object file *is* machine code. How many >>>>> times >>>>> do I have to tell you the same thing before you finally get it? One >>>>> last >>>>> time: an object file contains relocatable machine code amongst other >>>>> things. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So you finally admit that an object file is not machine code? Or is >>>> that >>>> not >>>> what you are saying either you twisted fuckwit? >>>> One minuteyou say the compiler outputs machine code, the next minute is >>>> outputs an object file, but an object file is not machine code? make >>>> your >>>> fuckin mind up you twised fuckpig scoundrel idiotic cunt , and dont >>>> call >>>> me >>>> a fuckin troll. >>> >>> You should sell tickets. >>> >> >> You have been proven to be a complete fool, once again. And yet you do >> not >> even have the dignity to accept you errors and admit that an object file, >> the output from a compiler, is not machine code. > > I never said that an object file is machine code; I said that an object > file contains machine code. > You said....... "I suspect very few modern C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine code directly". A C++ compiler does not create machine code , it creates and object file. The linker creates machine code. You said the compiler outputs machine code and now you are trying so say it outputs something that CONTAINS machine code. Why is everything you say you twisted and incorrect? --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 09:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee473ed$0$3081$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12324 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > The linker creates machine code. Aha, gotcha. By your own definition a linker does *not* produce "machine code". Why? Because your own definition was "machine code is a file that can be run without modification". A linker will produce eg. an .exe file on Windows, which can *not* be run without modification. The same is true in linux and other unix systems (where the executable file will be in COFF or ELF format, both similar to .exe in that they require modification before they can be run). Please claim that I'm wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 10:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee5d1d4$0$2791$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12338 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: > "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> The linker creates machine code. > > Aha, gotcha. > > By your own definition a linker does *not* produce "machine code". > > Why? Because your own definition was "machine code is a file that can > be run without modification". A linker will produce eg. an .exe file on > Windows, which can *not* be run without modification. The same is true > in linux and other unix systems (where the executable file will be in > COFF or ELF format, both similar to .exe in that they require modification > before they can be run). > > Please claim that I'm wrong. Haha. No response? Seems that I pwnd you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 12:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jc4qm8$2p11$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12396 |
"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message news:4ee5d1d4$0$2791$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >> "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> The linker creates machine code. >> >> Aha, gotcha. >> >> By your own definition a linker does *not* produce "machine code". >> >> Why? Because your own definition was "machine code is a file that can >> be run without modification". A linker will produce eg. an .exe file on >> Windows, which can *not* be run without modification. The same is true >> in linux and other unix systems (where the executable file will be in >> COFF or ELF format, both similar to .exe in that they require >> modification >> before they can be run). >> >> Please claim that I'm wrong. > > Haha. No response? Seems that I pwnd you. No I plonked you're idiotic bullshit long time ago. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 12:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee5fa64$0$3065$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12401 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Haha. No response? Seems that I pwnd you. > > No I plonked you're idiotic bullshit long time ago. You don't even know what that word means. You claim that an .exe file can be run directly because it's "machine code". Yet that's clearly not true, which becomes extremely clear if you read the specification for the .exe file, or even simply examine one with a hex editor (the file contains a header and other data that is *not* machine code, but instead data for the dynamic linker). But of course your pathological personality disorder makes it impossible for you to admit this, even against technical specifications of the file format.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 13:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aqWdnZ03s6qjLXnTnZ2dnUVZ7vqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12324 |
On 11/12/2011 03:23, Paul <pchrist wrote: > "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:YaednbsOZ5EHdn7TnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 10/12/2011 23:25, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:Q4Kdncar_4SufH7TnZ2dnUVZ8nednZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> On 10/12/2011 22:34, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>> news:lO6dnTLADLEBO37TnZ2dnUVZ8lydnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>> On 10/12/2011 18:13, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:GqadnSWZt-aY5X7TnZ2dnUVZ8n6dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2011 14:54, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>>>>>> "relocatable machine code" seems to be your phrase for the year. It >>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>> make any difference if you add the word "relocatable" you are still >>>>>>>>> suggesting the file is machine code because it contains machine >>>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is a lie and you know it troll. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You seem to have said it's machine code because it contains some >>>>>>> machine >>>>>>> code. >>>>>>> So lets clarify things here. Are you saying an object file, which is >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> direct output from a compiler, is machine code or isn't machine code >>>>>>> now? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have *never* said that an object file *is* machine code. How many >>>>>> times >>>>>> do I have to tell you the same thing before you finally get it? One >>>>>> last >>>>>> time: an object file contains relocatable machine code amongst other >>>>>> things. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you finally admit that an object file is not machine code? Or is >>>>> that >>>>> not >>>>> what you are saying either you twisted fuckwit? >>>>> One minuteyou say the compiler outputs machine code, the next minute is >>>>> outputs an object file, but an object file is not machine code? make >>>>> your >>>>> fuckin mind up you twised fuckpig scoundrel idiotic cunt , and dont >>>>> call >>>>> me >>>>> a fuckin troll. >>>> >>>> You should sell tickets. >>>> >>> >>> You have been proven to be a complete fool, once again. And yet you do >>> not >>> even have the dignity to accept you errors and admit that an object file, >>> the output from a compiler, is not machine code. >> >> I never said that an object file is machine code; I said that an object >> file contains machine code. >> > > You said....... "I suspect very few modern C++ compilers produce C as an > intermediate but rather create machine code directly". What I said is correct. > A C++ compiler does not create machine code , it creates and object file. Most C++ compilers create object files that contain machine code. > The linker creates machine code. Linkers link object files together "fixing" relocatable machine code contained within the object files being linked. > > You said the compiler outputs machine code and now you are trying so say it > outputs something that CONTAINS machine code. Why is everything you say you > twisted and incorrect? I am not "now" trying to say anything new; my second reply to you 4 days ago was: "Again with the trolling bullshit; object files typically contain relocatable machine code among other things." You need to get a grasp on reality mate. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 20:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jc342u$92k$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12341 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:aqWdnZ03s6qjLXnTnZ2dnUVZ7vqdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 11/12/2011 03:23, Paul <pchrist wrote: >> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:YaednbsOZ5EHdn7TnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 10/12/2011 23:25, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:Q4Kdncar_4SufH7TnZ2dnUVZ8nednZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>> On 10/12/2011 22:34, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>> news:lO6dnTLADLEBO37TnZ2dnUVZ8lydnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>> On 10/12/2011 18:13, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>>>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:GqadnSWZt-aY5X7TnZ2dnUVZ8n6dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2011 14:54, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "relocatable machine code" seems to be your phrase for the year. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>> make any difference if you add the word "relocatable" you are >>>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>> suggesting the file is machine code because it contains machine >>>>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is a lie and you know it troll. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You seem to have said it's machine code because it contains some >>>>>>>> machine >>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>> So lets clarify things here. Are you saying an object file, which >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> direct output from a compiler, is machine code or isn't machine >>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have *never* said that an object file *is* machine code. How many >>>>>>> times >>>>>>> do I have to tell you the same thing before you finally get it? One >>>>>>> last >>>>>>> time: an object file contains relocatable machine code amongst other >>>>>>> things. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So you finally admit that an object file is not machine code? Or is >>>>>> that >>>>>> not >>>>>> what you are saying either you twisted fuckwit? >>>>>> One minuteyou say the compiler outputs machine code, the next minute >>>>>> is >>>>>> outputs an object file, but an object file is not machine code? make >>>>>> your >>>>>> fuckin mind up you twised fuckpig scoundrel idiotic cunt , and dont >>>>>> call >>>>>> me >>>>>> a fuckin troll. >>>>> >>>>> You should sell tickets. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have been proven to be a complete fool, once again. And yet you do >>>> not >>>> even have the dignity to accept you errors and admit that an object >>>> file, >>>> the output from a compiler, is not machine code. >>> >>> I never said that an object file is machine code; I said that an object >>> file contains machine code. >>> >> >> You said....... "I suspect very few modern C++ compilers produce C as an >> intermediate but rather create machine code directly". > > What I said is correct. > >> A C++ compiler does not create machine code , it creates and object file. > > Most C++ compilers create object files that contain machine code. No they don't. They create object files that contain object code. If it was machine code it could be read by a machine. The text file that contains this message does not contain C++ code, it contains message text. If I write "int x=5", that doesnt mean this file contains C++ code. > >> The linker creates machine code. > > Linkers link object files together "fixing" relocatable machine code > contained within the object files being linked. Linkers create machine code. > >> >> You said the compiler outputs machine code and now you are trying so say >> it >> outputs something that CONTAINS machine code. Why is everything you say >> you >> twisted and incorrect? > > I am not "now" trying to say anything new; my second reply to you 4 days > ago was: Make your fuckin mind up are you saying an object file ,which is the direct output from a complier , is machine or not? > > "Again with the trolling bullshit; object files typically contain > relocatable machine code among other things." > No they contain object code. If they contained machine code they code be read by a machine. But the typicall object file can't be read by a machine, so why do you insist on calling it machine code? *shrug* --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 07:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <15764515.407.1323616450386.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prgg19> |
| In reply to | #12324 |
On Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:23:48 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote: > "Leigh Johnston" <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:YaednbsOZ5EHdn7TnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@giganews.com... > > On 10/12/2011 23:25, Paul > > "Leigh Johnston"<le...@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > >> news:Q4Kdncar_4SufH7TnZ2dnUVZ8nednZ2d@giganews.com... > >>> On 10/12/2011 22:34, Paul > >>> "Leigh Johnston"<le...@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > >>>> news:lO6dnTLADLEBO37TnZ2dnUVZ8lydnZ2d@giganews.com... > >>>>> On 10/12/2011 18:13, Paul > >>>>> "Leigh Johnston"<le...@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > >>>>>> news:GqadnSWZt-aY5X7TnZ2dnUVZ8n6dnZ2d@giganews.com... > >>>>>>> On 10/12/2011 14:54, Paul > >>>>>>> "relocatable machine code" seems to be your phrase for the year. It > >>>>>>>> doesn't > >>>>>>>> make any difference if you add the word "relocatable" you are still > >>>>>>>> suggesting the file is machine code because it contains machine > >>>>>>>> code. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That is a lie and you know it troll. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You seem to have said it's machine code because it contains some > >>>>>> machine > >>>>>> code. > >>>>>> So lets clarify things here. Are you saying an object file, which is > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> direct output from a compiler, is machine code or isn't machine code > >>>>>> now? > >>>>> > >>>>> I have *never* said that an object file *is* machine code. How many > >>>>> times > >>>>> do I have to tell you the same thing before you finally get it? One > >>>>> last > >>>>> time: an object file contains relocatable machine code amongst other > >>>>> things. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So you finally admit that an object file is not machine code? Or is > >>>> that > >>>> not > >>>> what you are saying either you twisted fuckwit? > >>>> One minuteyou say the compiler outputs machine code, the next minute is > >>>> outputs an object file, but an object file is not machine code? make > >>>> your > >>>> fuckin mind up you twised fuckpig scoundrel idiotic cunt , and dont > >>>> call > >>>> me > >>>> a fuckin troll. > >>> > >>> You should sell tickets. > >>> > >> > >> You have been proven to be a complete fool, once again. And yet you do > >> not > >> even have the dignity to accept you errors and admit that an object file, > >> the output from a compiler, is not machine code. > > > > I never said that an object file is machine code; I said that an object > > file contains machine code. > > > > You said....... "I suspect very few modern C++ compilers produce C as an > intermediate but rather create machine code directly". > A C++ compiler does not create machine code , it creates and object file. > The linker creates machine code. > > You said the compiler outputs machine code and now you are trying so say it > outputs something that CONTAINS machine code. Why is everything you say you > twisted and incorrect? > > A human can fake to be wrong in writing. How about a robot? > --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 09:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee472bb$0$3081$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12322 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > You have been proven to be a complete fool, once again. And yet you do not > even have the dignity to accept you errors and admit Btw, this is a classic example of psychological projection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-10 14:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1653907946345221090.989817troplin-bluewin.ch@news.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12303 |
"Paul" <pchrist<nospam> wrote: > My definition of machine code is code that runs on a machine. > An object file, that requires further translation before being read by a > machine, is not machine code. > How can you call something machine code when it's not code that can be run > on a machine? > > I think you are pretty stupid if you can't understand this. Once again you > persist that because the file contains some machine intructions it IS > machine code, which is utterly incorrect. So you and Leigh have just a different opinion what the term "code" means: Leigh: a sequence of instructions Paul: a file containing instructions Is that really worth such a Tobi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-10 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jc06rt$qrg$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12307 |
"Tobias Müller" <troplin@bluewin.ch> wrote in message news:1653907946345221090.989817troplin-bluewin.ch@news.aioe.org... > "Paul" <pchrist<nospam> wrote: >> My definition of machine code is code that runs on a machine. >> An object file, that requires further translation before being read by a >> machine, is not machine code. >> How can you call something machine code when it's not code that can be >> run >> on a machine? >> >> I think you are pretty stupid if you can't understand this. Once again >> you >> persist that because the file contains some machine intructions it IS >> machine code, which is utterly incorrect. > > So you and Leigh have just a different opinion what the term "code" means: > Leigh: a sequence of instructions > Paul: a file containing instructions > > Is that really worth such a > No thats incorrect, I think code is a sequence of instructions. But you can also have a code file, which contains a sequence of intructions. In this discussion we are talking about a file , which is output from a compiler , and that file is not in the correct format to be read by a machine. To call the object file, at this stage, machine code is incorrect. The code in the code section of this file may be machine instructions but this does not make the file contents machine code. If the file cannot be read by any machine , it cannot be called machine code. It is not machine code until it has been passed thorugh a linker and the file(or code in the file) is fit to be read by a machine. Ok lets say we open notepad and type.."This is machine code.... 101010". Just because a portion of the file contains some machine code , does this make it machine code? No becuase its not been properly translated for a machine. Machine code is simply code that is run on a machine, or read by a machines CPU, whether the code is in a file or in memory. Now take a file, an object file, that is not designed to be run on a machine. Nor can you run this code on a machine even if you wanted to. Why would you even consider calling this machine code? --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 09:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee4724d$0$3081$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12312 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Now take a file, an object file, that is not designed to be run on a > machine. Nor can you run this code on a machine even if you wanted to. You are digging deeper and deeper. Of course object files can be run. Just link them and run. .exe files are not much different: They also require a linking stage before they can be run. Just answer the question: Are .exe files "machine code" in your opinion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 09:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee47187$0$3081$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12303 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > My definition of machine code is code that runs on a machine. > An object file, that requires further translation before being read by a > machine, is not machine code. > How can you call something machine code when it's not code that can be run > on a machine? So an .exe file isn't "machine code" either (because it cannot be run as-is, but requires further modifications before it can be run). Thus, by your own very definition a linker does not produce "machine code", which is opposite of what you said originally. Of course *your* definition of "machine code" (which you came up with only because you cannot admit a mistake) is rather different than what the rest of the world defines as "machine code". Your definition seems to be "an executable file that requires no further modifications before it can be run on a CPU". I suppose DOS .com files meet those requirements. Of course those haven't been used in a long time. The rest of the world does not define "machine code" as a file format. "Machine code" has nothing to do with files. They refer to data that are direct CPU opcodes (regardless of where that data might be stored).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 20:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jc33e3$857$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12335 |
"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message news:4ee47187$0$3081$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... > "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> My definition of machine code is code that runs on a machine. >> An object file, that requires further translation before being read by a >> machine, is not machine code. >> How can you call something machine code when it's not code that can be >> run >> on a machine? > > So an .exe file isn't "machine code" either (because it cannot be run > as-is, but requires further modifications before it can be run). Thus, by > your own very definition a linker does not produce "machine code", which > is opposite of what you said originally. That is utter bullshit, An exe can be run directly. You're obviously the idiots spouting bullshit here . My case is rested. plonk. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 10:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee5d36f$0$2791$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12358 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >> So an .exe file isn't "machine code" either (because it cannot be run >> as-is, but requires further modifications before it can be run). Thus, by >> your own very definition a linker does not produce "machine code", which >> is opposite of what you said originally. > > That is utter bullshit, An exe can be run directly. No, it can't. Please educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portable_Executable&oldid=464930661 Read especially carefully the entirety of the "Technical details" section. Still don't believe me? Download a hex editor and open any .exe file with it, and examine the first bytes. What do you see? The first two bytes are "MZ". That's *not* machine code. That's an ID for the file format. What follows it isn't machine code either, but instructions for the dynamic linker (such as relocation and rebasing data). An .exe file cannot be run as-is. It requires modifications before it can be run by the CPU. (The reason why I gave a permanent link to the wikipedia article above instead of the regular link is that even if you go and vandalize that page, it won't help. That link will show the current version of the article and there's nothing you can do about it.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 15:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee22473$0$4377$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12262 |
Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote: >> No what was said was that a compiler directly outputs machine code. >> >> Read back you bafoon.<snip> > > A compiler directly outputs objects files and object files typically > contain relocatable machine code ergo compilers typically directly > output machine code. > > Simple. Logic. He is confusing "machine code" with "executable file". He thought that the original claim is "the compiler creates an executable file directly" rather than "the compiler creates machine code". Now he is trying to desperately pretend that "machine code" means "executable file" rather than what it really mens. Of course, as said, even executable files (eg. Windows .exe files) cannot be executed raw. They have to be loaded with a dynamic linker that performs further modifications to the binary before it can be properly executed. (Among other things, the dynamic linker may rebase the code to use a different base address, as well as setting up the addresses of shared system library functions.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 15:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbt88o$ksc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12253 |
Juha Nieminen wrote: > I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an object file > contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he meant > that an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical > sociopath manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. The problem isn't quite that. The expression "object file" doesn't refer to the same concept as "object code", and the comparison is supposed to be between "machine code" and "object code", not between "machine code" and "object file". The "object file" concept has been introduced to this discussion as a strawman, and therefore it doesn't make sense to draw any conclusion regarding how "object code" and "machine code" are supposed to be two different things by comparing "object files" to "machine code". It would be like arguing that "figures" and "images" are two different things, and then proceeding to discuss how the PNG file format stores information which doesn't form part of a figure, and therefore that meant that figures and images aren't the same thing. And this would be silly. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 02:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <12698427.232.1323341620912.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prez5> |
| In reply to | #12140 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2011 9:59:10 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote: > "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message > news:87aa7456wd.fsf@castleamber.com... > > "Paul" > o...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > > > >> Object files do not contain machine code. > >> * Shakes head in disbelief* > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code. > > > > Where we read: > > > > Almost all executable programs are written in higher-level languages, > > and translated to executable machine code by a /compiler/ and linker. > > (emphasis mine). > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_file > > An object file is a file containing relocatable format /machine code/ that > > is usually not directly executable. > > (emphasis mine) > > > > Don't be an idiot, an object file is not machine code. > Black is not white, a computer is not a dab radio , is not a telvevison , is > not a toaster.Stop being ridiculous please. > An object file contains machine code. Thus, compiler and linker just emit machine code to run on a machine. But the 3 layer separation of GCC is good for portabilities of new languages to be supported in GCC to emit native machine code if desired. The HW separation of GCC is more versatile than MSVC that sticks with X86 only. Some compiler authors from cs maybe just don't think in HW very naturally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 05:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <gl61e7l2lrqgedp08v2vtpqj0btcv3mcrh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #12156 |
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 02:53:40 -0800 (PST), 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> wrote: >On Thursday, December 8, 2011 9:59:10 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote: >> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message >> news:87aa7456wd.fsf@castleamber.com... >> > "Paul" >> o...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> > >> >> Object files do not contain machine code. >> >> * Shakes head in disbelief* >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code. >> > >> > Where we read: >> > >> > Almost all executable programs are written in higher-level languages, >> > and translated to executable machine code by a /compiler/ and linker. >> > (emphasis mine). >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_file >> > An object file is a file containing relocatable format /machine code/ that >> > is usually not directly executable. >> > (emphasis mine) >> > >> >> Don't be an idiot, an object file is not machine code. >> Black is not white, a computer is not a dab radio , is not a telvevison , is >> not a toaster.Stop being ridiculous please. >> > An object file contains machine code. >Thus, compiler and linker just emit machine code to run on a machine. Except, as pointed out elsethread, when object files contain nothing at all resembling machine code. In byte-code or link-time-code-generation cases, for example. >But the 3 layer separation of GCC is good for portabilities of new languages >to be supported in GCC to emit native machine code if desired. > >The HW separation of GCC is more versatile than MSVC that sticks with X86 only. MSVC currently compiles for x86, x86-64, IPF and ARM. And in the past compiled for Alpha, MIPS and PPC. IPF will be moving to the "past" category in the not too distant future. >Some compiler authors from cs maybe just don't think in HW very naturally. Emitting machine code is tedious, but not particularly difficult, especially on architectures like x86, with annoyingly complex instruction encoding. Emitting assembler is generally a fair chunk less work, and amounts to the same thing at the end. And gives you a good spot to debug your compiler. And if it becomes important, you can always change it or embed an assembler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 03:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <18163266.742.1323345048093.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prnx7> |
| In reply to | #12159 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2011 7:16:03 PM UTC+8, robert...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 02:53:40 -0800 (PST), 88888 Dihedral > <dihedr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >On Thursday, December 8, 2011 9:59:10 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote: > >> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message > >> news:87aa7456wd.fsf@castleamber.com... > >> > "Paul" > >> o....@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > >> > > >> >> Object files do not contain machine code. > >> >> * Shakes head in disbelief* > >> >> > >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code. > >> > > >> > Where we read: > >> > > >> > Almost all executable programs are written in higher-level languages, > >> > and translated to executable machine code by a /compiler/ and linker. > >> > (emphasis mine). > >> > > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_file > >> > An object file is a file containing relocatable format /machine code/ that > >> > is usually not directly executable. > >> > (emphasis mine) > >> > > >> > >> Don't be an idiot, an object file is not machine code. > >> Black is not white, a computer is not a dab radio , is not a telvevison , is > >> not a toaster.Stop being ridiculous please. > >> > > An object file contains machine code. > >Thus, compiler and linker just emit machine code to run on a machine. > > > Except, as pointed out elsethread, when object files contain nothing > at all resembling machine code. In byte-code or > link-time-code-generation cases, for example. > > > >But the 3 layer separation of GCC is good for portabilities of new languages > >to be supported in GCC to emit native machine code if desired. > > > >The HW separation of GCC is more versatile than MSVC that sticks with X86 only. > > > MSVC currently compiles for x86, x86-64, IPF and ARM. And in the past > compiled for Alpha, MIPS and PPC. IPF will be moving to the "past" > category in the not too distant future. > Thanks for your information. I personally use MSVC in Wintel platforms. I use GCC in linux/unix/solaris platforms. I have co-linux installed under windows with a VNC that can be used to test a lot GNU PLOTS, GNU GCC and etc..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web