Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121757 > unrolled thread

Python recompile

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-02 14:35 +0000
    Re: Python recompile Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-03-02 15:54 +0000
      Re: Python recompile Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-03-02 16:58 +0000
        Re: Python recompile Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-03-02 17:08 +0000
          Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 08:14 +0000
        Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-02 12:30 -0500
          Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-02 18:35 +0000
          Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 08:13 +0000
            Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 08:31 +0000
              Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 10:44 +0000
                Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-03 12:20 +0000
                  Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 15:03 +0000
                Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 12:47 +0000
                  Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 15:06 +0000
            Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 10:22 -0500
              Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 16:19 +0000
              Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 11:24 -0500
                Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 16:26 +0000
                Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 11:39 -0500
                  Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 16:56 +0000
                    Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-03 18:22 +0100
                      Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 08:31 +0000
                        Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 17:28 +0000
                    Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 17:25 +0000
                      Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 08:32 +0000
                        Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 08:56 +0000
                          Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 09:23 +0000
                            Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 09:57 +0000
                              Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 10:03 +0000
                                Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 10:25 +0000
                                  Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 11:19 +0000
                                Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 17:42 +0000
                          Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-04 19:12 -0500
                    Re: Python recompile gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-03 23:42 +0000
                  Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 13:29 -0500
                    Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 16:52 -0500
                Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 17:19 +0000
                  Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 13:33 -0500
                    Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 19:15 +0000
                      Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 18:51 -0500
                        Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 00:49 +0000
                        Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 02:29 +0000
                    Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-04 09:12 +0100
                      Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 11:33 +0000
                        Re: Python recompile Muffley@DinkyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 12:00 +0000
                      Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-04 15:31 +0200
                Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-03 18:28 +0100
                  Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 08:33 +0000
                    Re: Python recompile "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2025-03-04 10:19 +0100
                      Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 18:06 +0000
                        Re: Python recompile "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2025-03-05 07:58 +0100
                          Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-05 07:09 +0000
                          Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-05 18:54 +0000
                Re: Python recompile Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2025-03-06 07:35 +0100
                  Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-06 07:32 +0000
                    Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-06 08:39 +0000
                  Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-06 12:40 -0800
                  Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-07 13:17 -0500
            Re: Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-03 16:12 +0000
    Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-02 17:54 +0000
      Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-02 19:15 +0000
      Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-02 13:38 -0500
        Re: Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-03 00:42 +0000
          Re: Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-03 00:46 +0000
          Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-02 22:24 -0500
        Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-03 17:20 +0000
          Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 17:28 +0000
          Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 12:57 -0500
          Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-03 18:02 +0000
          Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-03 19:37 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#121820

On 03/03/2025 17:56, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 11:39:58 -0500
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>> On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> ....
>>>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>>
>>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
>> Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
>> message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
> 
> Only an arrogant idiot would think that errors on linking object files
> generated by a C compiler are not relevant in a C language group.
> 
> 

If the problem could be solved by understanding C better, it would be 
relevant.  But the problem has nothing to do with the C /code/ in 
question, nor the C language.  It's a matter of the build process for 
the particular program - not a C issue.  It is not even a linker issue, 
or a "make" issue.  It is an issue with the program source and build 
process, which is very specific to the program in question.

That means people who are experts on the C language, and experts at C 
coding, can't help the OP - no matter how much they would like to help.

Thus it is off-topic.

Of course it is possible that someone in this group is familiar with 
building Python, or with similar errors in building other programs - so 
it's maybe worth trying posting here.  But if unless the OP gets lucky 
like that, the best people here can do is give suggestions for other 
sources of help - and then the thread can stop as it is not only 
off-topic, but very niche.  The same goes for posting in 
comp.lang.python - amongst the Python users there who have no clue about 
the problem, there might happen to be people who have compiled Python 
themselves.

Probably the best place for the OP to look would be in the C-Python 
developer documentation, or groups, forums or mailing lists connected to 
that.


For the obligatory car metaphor, imagine a group dedicated to learning 
to drive and driving techniques.  A post about a particular make of car 
would be off-topic, but perhaps okay on occasion.  The OP's post here is 
asking for the best way to avoid roadworks on the Bath to Reading road. 
Maybe he'll get lucky and someone in the group knows that area, but for 
the most part, all the group can do is direct him to other sources of 
information - despite the fact that he is driving.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121860

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 18:22:52 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>On 03/03/2025 17:56, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 11:39:58 -0500
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>> On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> ....
>>>>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>>
>>> Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
>>> message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
>> 
>> Only an arrogant idiot would think that errors on linking object files
>> generated by a C compiler are not relevant in a C language group.
>> 
>> 
>
>If the problem could be solved by understanding C better, it would be 
>relevant.  But the problem has nothing to do with the C /code/ in 
>question, nor the C language.  It's a matter of the build process for 

Compilation is a fundamental part of developing in C.

>For the obligatory car metaphor, imagine a group dedicated to learning 
>to drive and driving techniques.  A post about a particular make of car 
>would be off-topic, but perhaps okay on occasion.  The OP's post here is 
>asking for the best way to avoid roadworks on the Bath to Reading road. 

Lousy metaphor. Its more like writing C code is building the car and 
compilation is starting it up at the end.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121884

On 2025-03-04, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
> Compilation is a fundamental part of developing in C.

Someone trying to build a open source package like Python isn't
ipso facto confirmed to be "developing in C".

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121821

On 03/03/2025 16:56, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 11:39:58 -0500
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>> On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> ....
>>>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>>
>>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
>> Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
>> message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
> 
> Only an arrogant idiot would think that errors on linking object files
> generated by a C compiler are not relevant in a C language group.

James Kuyper has been posting here for decades, and has helped 
many hundreds, or more likely thousands, of C programmers to 
better understand the C language. A genuine language expert, he 
deserves to be treated better than to be called an arrogant 
idiot, especially when the abuser has no discernible track record 
of having ever helped anyone with high quality C advice.

That may be because "Muttley" doesn't seem even to know what the 
C language /is/.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121861

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 17:25:27 +0000
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>On 03/03/2025 16:56, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 11:39:58 -0500
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>> On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> ....
>>>>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>>
>>> Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
>>> message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
>> 
>> Only an arrogant idiot would think that errors on linking object files
>> generated by a C compiler are not relevant in a C language group.
>
>James Kuyper has been posting here for decades, and has helped 

Oh well, in that case I bow down in front of his magnificence, he must not
be contradicted!

>many hundreds, or more likely thousands, of C programmers to 
>better understand the C language. A genuine language expert, he 
>deserves to be treated better than to be called an arrogant 
>idiot, especially when the abuser has no discernible track record 
>of having ever helped anyone with high quality C advice.
>
>That may be because "Muttley" doesn't seem even to know what the 
>C language /is/.

Compilation is a fundamental part of the process of programming in C whether 
you and Kuyper like it or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121863

On 04/03/2025 08:32, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 17:25:27 +0000
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>> On 03/03/2025 16:56, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 11:39:58 -0500
>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>>> On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> ....
>>>>>>>    That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>>>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>>>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>>>
>>>> Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
>>>> message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
>>>
>>> Only an arrogant idiot would think that errors on linking object files
>>> generated by a C compiler are not relevant in a C language group.
>>
>> James Kuyper has been posting here for decades, and has helped
> 
> Oh well, in that case I bow down in front of his magnificence, he must not
> be contradicted!

James would be the first to say that he should be contradicted 
when he is mistaken.

Here, he is not mistaken. You are.

>> many hundreds, or more likely thousands, of C programmers to
>> better understand the C language. A genuine language expert, he
>> deserves to be treated better than to be called an arrogant
>> idiot, especially when the abuser has no discernible track record
>> of having ever helped anyone with high quality C advice.
>>
>> That may be because "Muttley" doesn't seem even to know what the
>> C language /is/.
> 
> Compilation is a fundamental part of the process of programming in C whether
> you and Kuyper like it or not.

Quoth K&R in "The C Programming Language":

Just how to run this program depends on the system you are using. 
As a specific example, on the UNIX operating system you must 
create the program in a file whose name ends in ".c", such as 
hello.c, then compile it with the command cc hello.c... On other 
systems, the rules will be different; check with a local expert.


And that's the point. The OP needs a local expert - i.e. someone 
who has specific experience of building Python with the OP's 
specific compiler.

K&R go on (on p25): "If the source program appears in several 
files, you may have to say more to compile and load it than if it 
all appears in one, but that is an operating system matter, not a 
language attribute."

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121865

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 08:56:57 +0000
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>On 04/03/2025 08:32, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> Oh well, in that case I bow down in front of his magnificence, he must not
>> be contradicted!
>
>James would be the first to say that he should be contradicted 
>when he is mistaken.
>
>Here, he is not mistaken. You are.

No, I'm not, because plenty of compilation issues are caused by code issues.
Or are you claiming those don't count as part of development?

>> Compilation is a fundamental part of the process of programming in C whether
>> you and Kuyper like it or not.
>
>Quoth K&R in "The C Programming Language":

*yawn*

>Just how to run this program depends on the system you are using. 
>As a specific example, on the UNIX operating system you must 

Blah blah.

K&R would also claim that the function parameter type definitions have to 
follow the prototype. Luckily that hasn't been the case since 1989.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121867

On 04/03/2025 09:23, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 08:56:57 +0000
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>> On 04/03/2025 08:32, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> Oh well, in that case I bow down in front of his magnificence, he must not
>>> be contradicted!
>>
>> James would be the first to say that he should be contradicted
>> when he is mistaken.
>>
>> Here, he is not mistaken. You are.
> 
> No, I'm not,

Yes, you are.

> because plenty of compilation issues are caused by code issues.

Undoubtedly true, and equally undoubtedly irrelevant in this 
case. Were it relevant, the OP would by now have shown us the 
problem code.

> Or are you claiming those don't count as part of development?

Not at all. Your keyboard's shift key is part of development too, 
but that isn't enough to make it topical in comp.lang.c.

Show us the code.

>>> Compilation is a fundamental part of the process of programming in C whether
>>> you and Kuyper like it or not.
>>
>> Quoth K&R in "The C Programming Language":
> 
> *yawn*
> 
>> Just how to run this program depends on the system you are using.
>> As a specific example, on the UNIX operating system you must
> 
> Blah blah.
> 
> K&R would also claim that the function parameter type definitions have to
> follow the prototype. Luckily that hasn't been the case since 1989.

Is it, then, your claim that K&R are mistaken or outdated and 
that compilation no longer depends on the system you are using 
and has now become a language attribute? Can you hear the 
chuckles yet?

If you think you can defend your claim by showing where the 
language standard supports your extraordinarily wobbly position, 
by all means have a crack at it. Show us why you're right.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121868

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 09:57:16 +0000
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>On 04/03/2025 09:23, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> because plenty of compilation issues are caused by code issues.
>
>Undoubtedly true, and equally undoubtedly irrelevant in this 
>case. Were it relevant, the OP would by now have shown us the 
>problem code.

So what you're saying is you can't troubleshoot linking problems. Do you
get someone else to compile your code for you?

>> Or are you claiming those don't count as part of development?
>
>Not at all. Your keyboard's shift key is part of development too, 
>but that isn't enough to make it topical in comp.lang.c.

Oh dear, if stuck go in circles, posted comparisons conveniently ignored.

>> K&R would also claim that the function parameter type definitions have to
>> follow the prototype. Luckily that hasn't been the case since 1989.
>
>Is it, then, your claim that K&R are mistaken or outdated and 

Is K&R outdated? Hmm, let me think about that for a nanosecond...

>that compilation no longer depends on the system you are using 
>and has now become a language attribute? Can you hear the 
>chuckles yet?

A compiler is a compiler, a linker is a linker. Troubleshooting both is part
of the development process of any competent C dev. But we know already you
don't consider that to be the case because its beyond your abilities.

>If you think you can defend your claim by showing where the 
>language standard supports your extraordinarily wobbly position, 
>by all means have a crack at it. Show us why you're right.

Wtf has the language standard got to do with anything? Moving goalposts, much?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121871

On 04/03/2025 10:03, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 09:57:16 +0000
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>> On 04/03/2025 09:23, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> because plenty of compilation issues are caused by code issues.
>>
>> Undoubtedly true, and equally undoubtedly irrelevant in this
>> case. Were it relevant, the OP would by now have shown us the
>> problem code.
> 
> So what you're saying is you can't troubleshoot linking problems.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Do learn to read. What I'm saying 
is that the OP would be better served by posting the problem 
statement in a group more closely related to the actual problem.

We may, I trust, presume that the Python source he is building is 
production code that has successfully been built before by other 
people? If so, then it's not a language issue, and that is enough 
to put it beyond comp.lang.c's brief.

> Do you
> get someone else to compile your code for you?

I tell the compiler to do it. Don't you?

> 
>>> Or are you claiming those don't count as part of development?
>>
>> Not at all. Your keyboard's shift key is part of development too,
>> but that isn't enough to make it topical in comp.lang.c.
> 
> Oh dear, if stuck go in circles, posted comparisons conveniently ignored.

Your inability to comprehend analogies does not stop them from 
being valid illustrations of the gaping holes in your "argument" 
(such as it is).

> 
>>> K&R would also claim that the function parameter type definitions have to
>>> follow the prototype. Luckily that hasn't been the case since 1989.
>>
>> Is it, then, your claim that K&R are mistaken or outdated and
> 
> Is K&R outdated? Hmm, let me think about that for a nanosecond...

So it *is* your claim that...

>> that compilation no longer depends on the system you are using
>> and has now become a language attribute? Can you hear the
>> chuckles yet?

Laughing my socks off. Time to plonk, perhaps?

> Wtf has the language standard got to do with anything?

Yep; time to plonk.

Bye-bye.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121872

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:25:01 +0000
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>On 04/03/2025 10:03, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 09:57:16 +0000
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>>> On 04/03/2025 09:23, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> because plenty of compilation issues are caused by code issues.
>>>
>>> Undoubtedly true, and equally undoubtedly irrelevant in this
>>> case. Were it relevant, the OP would by now have shown us the
>>> problem code.
>> 
>> So what you're saying is you can't troubleshoot linking problems.
>
>No, that's not what I'm saying. Do learn to read. What I'm saying 

Sounds like it to me.

>is that the OP would be better served by posting the problem 
>statement in a group more closely related to the actual problem.

Well do feel free to suggest which group might be appropriate for C compilation
issues.

>We may, I trust, presume that the Python source he is building is 
>production code that has successfully been built before by other 
>people? If so, then it's not a language issue, and that is enough 
>to put it beyond comp.lang.c's brief.

There's zero logical connection there. People experience similar issues all
the time with C, should they all be denied help?

>> get someone else to compile your code for you?
>
>I tell the compiler to do it. Don't you?

You sure you don't get someone else to run the compiler for you?

>> Oh dear, if stuck go in circles, posted comparisons conveniently ignored.
>
>Your inability to comprehend analogies does not stop them from 
>being valid illustrations of the gaping holes in your "argument" 
>(such as it is).

Translation: I have no counter argument worth a damn.

As expected.

>> Is K&R outdated? Hmm, let me think about that for a nanosecond...
>
>So it *is* your claim that...

Their language spec is certainly outdated. You think its current?

>>> that compilation no longer depends on the system you are using
>>> and has now become a language attribute? Can you hear the
>>> chuckles yet?
>
>Laughing my socks off. Time to plonk, perhaps?

Laughing at your own replies now? Well at least we can agree they are
laughable.

>> Wtf has the language standard got to do with anything?
>
>Yep; time to plonk.

Oh dear, really can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag can you so
resort to the standard issue lost the argument last resort of drop-the-mic.

>Bye-bye.

Good riddance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121885

On 2025-03-04, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 09:57:16 +0000
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>>On 04/03/2025 09:23, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> because plenty of compilation issues are caused by code issues.
>>
>>Undoubtedly true, and equally undoubtedly irrelevant in this 
>>case. Were it relevant, the OP would by now have shown us the 
>>problem code.
>
> So what you're saying is you can't troubleshoot linking problems. Do you
> get someone else to compile your code for you?

Python is not "your code" for any value of "your" referring to any
regular here in comp.lang.c.

> A compiler is a compiler, a linker is a linker. Troubleshooting both is part
> of the development process of any competent C dev. But we know already you
> don't consider that to be the case because its beyond your abilities.

Troubleshooting an open source package build problem is often a complex
problem that in most cases requires direct access to the environment
where the problem is happening.

It's actually a case of porting. When Python does not build in some OS
distro with certain compilers, that's a kind of porting challenge.

The program in question almost certainly doesn't have a C language
problem. It has a build system portability problem.  Even though
some build system portability problems intersect with C topics, This
isn't a build system portability problem newsgroup.

"Port this big package for me to my environment because I don't know
what I'm doing" is not a suitable discussion topic here for reasons like
people not having that exact environment ot be able to reproduce the
problem, and people not coming here to discuss that sort of thing.

It's a lot better to take it to either a mailing list for the platform
where you are trying to port the program, or else the mailing list for
that program.

The build issue could be something that recurs for other programs
being ported to the same environment.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121889

On 3/4/25 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 04/03/2025 08:32, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 17:25:27 +0000
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
...
>>> James Kuyper has been posting here for decades, and has helped
>>
>> Oh well, in that case I bow down in front of his magnificence, he must not
>> be contradicted!
> 
> James would be the first to say that he should be contradicted 
> when he is mistaken.

I would have been, but I don't see Muttley's messages except when
someone responds to them.

...
> And that's the point. The OP needs a local expert - i.e. someone 
> who has specific experience of building Python with the OP's 
> specific compiler.
> 
> K&R go on (on p25): "If the source program appears in several 
> files, you may have to say more to compile and load it than if it 
> all appears in one, but that is an operating system matter, not a 
> language attribute."

Agreed - that's precisely the point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121852

In article <vq4n05$1d5dv$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 11:39:58 -0500
>James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>....
>>>>>  That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>>
>>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
>>Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
>>message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
>
>Only an arrogant idiot would think that errors on linking object files
>generated by a C compiler are not relevant in a C language group.
>
>

Indeed.  And as you see, there is no shortage of arrogant idiots in
comp.lang.c

'Tis always been thus, and always will be.

BTW, I note that this thread is (still!) posted to 2 other groups, besides
CLC, but the main topic of discussion in the thread (the usual topicality
BS) is, of course, only relevant to CLC.

Funny, that.


-- 
The book "1984" used to be a cautionary tale;
Now it is a "how-to" manual.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121831

On 3/3/25 11:39, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> ...
>>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>
>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>> Why is this group so intolerant?
> 
> Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
> message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
> responded to by people who are more likely to understand and be
> interested in the contents of the message, and can give you better
> answers to any questions you have. When you post to the wrong group,
> they will be less interested in the message and less capable of giving
> good answers to it.
> However, if you're not interested in getting good answers to your
> questions, and it doesn't bother you that your messages are going to
> people not interested in the topic of your message, by all means post to
> any group you choose. This isn't a moderated group - no one can stop you
> from posting here.
Even if it is topicality, whey people rude and insulting to others in 
this group?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121850

On 3/3/25 13:29, geodandw wrote:
> On 3/3/25 11:39, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>>
>>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
>> Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
>> message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
>> responded to by people who are more likely to understand and be
>> interested in the contents of the message, and can give you better
>> answers to any questions you have. When you post to the wrong group,
>> they will be less interested in the message and less capable of giving
>> good answers to it.
>> However, if you're not interested in getting good answers to your
>> questions, and it doesn't bother you that your messages are going to
>> people not interested in the topic of your message, by all means post to
>> any group you choose. This isn't a moderated group - no one can stop you
>> from posting here.
> Even if it is topicality, whey people rude and insulting to others in 
> this group?

I don't know. I've got most of the rudest people killfiled, so I'm not
exposed to them very much except when someone responds to them. I've
little insight into why they behave the way that they do.

However, the context of your comment suggests that you may consider
something that I said to be rude or insulting. Is that correct? If so,
could you identify what that was? I can assure you that nothing I wrote
in this thread was meant to be rude or insulting.

I'm afraid that I can't make a more general statement to that effect - I
 believe that rudeness is sometimes an appropriate way to inform someone
that they've stepped over the line into unacceptable behavior. "You cut
into the line in front of me!" might be considered rude, but it is also
an appropriate response, if true. Similarly, accusing someone of lying
might be considered insulting, but if they were indeed lying, the insult
is earned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121818

On 03/03/2025 16:24, geodandw wrote:
> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:30:53 -0500
>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 16:58:20 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 15:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> gabbled:
>>>>>> First off, this isn't really on-topic for comp.lang.c, as 
>>>>>> it is a question
>>>>>> regarding a linker, interacting
>>>>>> with the results of various options given to a specific 
>>>>>> compiler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a comp.lang.c.linker group?
>>>>
>>>> comp.lang.c is about using the C programming language. 
>>>> Linkers are
>>>> independent of the programming language, and can be used to link
>>>
>>> Without compilers and linkers a C program would just be a load 
>>> of text.
>>
>> Without computers, keyboards and monitors most C programs 
>> wouldn't be
>> much use, either. That doesn't make a malfunctioning computer 
>> monitor a
>> C problem. And it doesn't make a linkage problems a C problem 
>> either.
>>
>>>> together programs written in many different languages. The 
>>>> subject line
>>>> and the text of the error messages indicate that it's a 
>>>> Python program,
>>>> so why would a group devoted to C be in any way appropriate?
>>>
>>> If you'd taken 2 seconds to look at it you'd realise the issue 
>>> was building
>>> the Python source code which is written in C.
>>
>> The indentations of the first message cross-posted to 
>> comp.lang.c and
>> comp.lang.c++ suggest that it was the latest in a series of 
>> earlier
>> messages posted somewhere else (comp.lang.python?). Those earlier
>> messages might have contained additional information. If that
>> information was relevant, it should have been included when the 
>> message
>> was first cross-posted to comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++. You 
>> might be
>> right about it being "Python source code ... written in C", but 
>> nothing
>> in the messages that were posted here makes that obvious.
>>
>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>
>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced 
>> the problem
>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't 
>> see.
> Why is this group so intolerant?

Why are you so intolerant of other people's wish to keep this 
group topical?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121833

On 3/3/25 12:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/03/2025 16:24, geodandw wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:30:53 -0500
>>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>>>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 16:58:20 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 15:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> gabbled:
>>>>>>> First off, this isn't really on-topic for comp.lang.c, as it is a 
>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>> regarding a linker, interacting
>>>>>>> with the results of various options given to a specific compiler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a comp.lang.c.linker group?
>>>>>
>>>>> comp.lang.c is about using the C programming language. Linkers are
>>>>> independent of the programming language, and can be used to link
>>>>
>>>> Without compilers and linkers a C program would just be a load of text.
>>>
>>> Without computers, keyboards and monitors most C programs wouldn't be
>>> much use, either. That doesn't make a malfunctioning computer monitor a
>>> C problem. And it doesn't make a linkage problems a C problem either.
>>>
>>>>> together programs written in many different languages. The subject 
>>>>> line
>>>>> and the text of the error messages indicate that it's a Python 
>>>>> program,
>>>>> so why would a group devoted to C be in any way appropriate?
>>>>
>>>> If you'd taken 2 seconds to look at it you'd realise the issue was 
>>>> building
>>>> the Python source code which is written in C.
>>>
>>> The indentations of the first message cross-posted to comp.lang.c and
>>> comp.lang.c++ suggest that it was the latest in a series of earlier
>>> messages posted somewhere else (comp.lang.python?). Those earlier
>>> messages might have contained additional information. If that
>>> information was relevant, it should have been included when the message
>>> was first cross-posted to comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++. You might be
>>> right about it being "Python source code ... written in C", but nothing
>>> in the messages that were posted here makes that obvious.
>>>
>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>
>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>> Why is this group so intolerant?
> 
> Why are you so intolerant of other people's wish to keep this group 
> topical?
> 

A. Because the problem is apparently using the right options on the 
compiler, which seems like a C question to me.
B.Because some people in this group are arrogant. rude, and 
insulting..If the shoe fits, wear it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121843

On 03/03/2025 18:33, geodandw wrote:
> On 3/3/25 12:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/03/2025 16:24, geodandw wrote:

<snip>

>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
>> Why are you so intolerant of other people's wish to keep this 
>> group topical?
>>
> 
> A. Because

[...reason...]

Clearly you have no objection to intolerance as long as it's you 
doing it.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121853

On 3/3/25 14:15, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/03/2025 18:33, geodandw wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 12:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2025 16:24, geodandw wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>>
>>> Why are you so intolerant of other people's wish to keep this group 
>>> topical?
>>>
>>
>> A. Because
> 
> [...reason...]
> 
> Clearly you have no objection to intolerance as long as it's you doing it.
> 
Disliking intolerance is not intolerance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web