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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #12435 > unrolled thread

include

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

Contents

  include ahso <ahso47@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-13 01:45 -0800
    Re: include Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-13 02:07 -0800
      Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-13 12:44 +0000
        Re: include jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-13 13:47 +0100
          Re: include Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-13 18:24 +0000
            Re: include jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-13 19:30 +0100
            Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 18:38 +0000
              Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 18:47 +0000
                Re: include jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-13 20:14 +0100
                  Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 19:31 +0000
                    Re: include jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-13 21:10 +0100
                      Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 20:17 +0000
                        Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 20:18 +0000
                      Re: include Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-12-14 19:56 +0100
                Re: include Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-14 08:45 +1300
                  Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 20:03 +0000
                    Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 20:05 +0000
                    Re: include Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-14 09:12 +1300
                Re: include Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> - 2011-12-14 09:31 +0000
              Re: include Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-12-14 07:06 -0800
                Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 15:35 +0000
                  Re: include Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-12-14 23:19 -0800
                    Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 12:37 +0000
                      Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 12:38 +0000
                      Re: include Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-12-15 06:12 -0800
                  Re: include Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-17 15:39 -0800
          Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-14 08:42 +0000
            Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 09:02 +0000
              Re: include jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-14 10:18 +0100
                Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 14:28 +0000
                  Re: include jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-14 17:25 +0100
                    Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 17:43 +0000
            Re: include jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-14 10:13 +0100
              Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-14 09:37 +0000
        Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 12:50 +0000
          Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-14 08:43 +0000
            Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 08:58 +0000
              Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-14 09:23 +0000
                Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 14:31 +0000
                  Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-14 17:55 +0000
                    Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 23:23 +0000
            Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 15:43 +0000
              Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-14 18:01 +0000
                Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 00:34 +0000
                  Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-15 09:46 +0000
                    Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 17:34 +0000
                      Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 17:58 +0000
                        Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 19:56 +0000
                          Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 21:08 +0000
                            Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 21:36 +0000
                              Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 21:43 +0000
                                Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 22:23 +0000
                                  Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 23:16 +0000
                                    Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 23:30 +0000
                                      Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 23:38 +0000
                                        Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-16 12:00 +0000
                                          Re: include gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-12-16 04:22 -0800
                                          Re: include 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-16 07:26 -0800
                                      Re: include Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-12-15 23:48 -0800
                                        Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 07:59 +0000
                                          Re: include Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-12-16 03:56 -0800
                                          Re: include Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-12-16 04:04 -0800
                                            Re: include John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-12-16 08:28 -0600
                                            Re: include Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-17 15:51 -0800
                                        Re: include gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-12-16 02:11 -0800
                                          Re: include Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-12-16 03:59 -0800
                                        Re: include John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-12-16 08:24 -0600
                                        Re: include Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> - 2011-12-16 15:55 +0000
                      Re: include "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2011-12-16 10:11 +0100
                        Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 14:10 +0000
                          Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-16 16:00 +0000
                            Re: include "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-12-18 18:07 +0100
                              Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-18 17:11 +0000
                      Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-16 11:49 +0000
                        Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 14:04 +0000
                          Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-16 16:19 +0000
                            Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 18:37 +0000
                              Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-17 07:35 +0000
                                Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 14:34 +0000
                                  Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 14:47 +0000
                                    Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 19:52 +0000
                                      Re: include Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 20:03 +0000
                                        Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 23:11 +0000
                                  Re: include Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-19 10:14 +0000
                                    Re: include "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-19 15:46 +0000

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#12574

On Dec 16, 8:59 am, "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>o...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I know one thing for sure. Horrible people like you are certainly wrong and
> you will die one die. This makes me happy :)

See what happens when you don't take your medication? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

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

#12575

On Dec 16, 8:59 am, "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>o...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I know one thing for sure. Horrible people like you are certainly wrong and
> you will die one die. This makes me happy :)

Actually, it's the medicine that makes you happy. But you need to take
it to realize you have been unhappy before.

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

#12581

Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> writes:

> On Dec 16, 8:59 am, "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>o...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I know one thing for sure. Horrible people like you are certainly wrong and
>> you will die one die. This makes me happy :)
>
> Actually, it's the medicine that makes you happy.

Actually, there are no (legal) medications that make people happy. I
guess to are referring here to SSRIs and similar meds. What those do in
some people -- SSRIs, for example, are not that effective although they
are considered the magic solution for almost everything -- is to make it
possible to be able to "feel" things again, to actually enjoy things
again, to remove the numbness. And yes, that can allow for (more)
moments of happiness.

-- 
John Bokma                                                               j3b

Blog: http://johnbokma.com/        Perl Consultancy: http://castleamber.com/
Perl for books:    http://johnbokma.com/perl/help-in-exchange-for-books.html

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

#12630

On Dec 16, 12:04 pm, Goran <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, it's the medicine that makes you happy. But you need to take
> it to realize you have been unhappy before.

"take your meds!" might have been worth saying once (though I don't
believe so in this case). But repeating it just clutters the ng. If
you believe the person you are responding to has a mental health
problem then what sort of person are you to keep tormenting him? If
you don't, then why do think it is reasonable to use mental health as
a stick to beat him with? Would you do this with his skin colour or
religion or sexual orientation? Some people who post to the internet
do have problems. You are not helping.

When I was child "thlid" and "spass" were terms of insult. I think it
is better that they no longer are.

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

#12568

On Dec 16, 7:48 am, Goran <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 12:30 am, "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>o...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Well you remain wrong then. A C++ compiler outputs object code, not machine
> > code or C code.
>
> You know who's wrong? People who don't take their medication. Remember
> that guy from Norway some months ago? Well, that's what often happens
> when you forget your medication.

Battle not with monsters, lest you become a monster... Seriously, the
correct response to an internet kook is *not* continual attempts to
engage in rational discourse, but its not abuse either.

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

#12570

On Dec 16, 11:11 am, gwowen <gwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 7:48 am, Goran <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 16, 12:30 am, "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>o...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Well you remain wrong then. A C++ compiler outputs object code, not machine
> > > code or C code.
>
> > You know who's wrong? People who don't take their medication. Remember
> > that guy from Norway some months ago? Well, that's what often happens
> > when you forget your medication.
>
> Battle not with monsters, lest you become a monster... Seriously, the
> correct response to an internet kook is *not* continual attempts to
> engage in rational discourse, but its not abuse either.

True, but it's not human to always abstain, either ;-)

Goran.

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

#12579

Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> writes:

> You know who's wrong? People who don't take their medication. Remember
> that guy from Norway some months ago? Well, that's what often happens
> when you forget your medication.

Goran,

I really would appreciate it if you leave the "medication" out of future
discussions. Not all meds are effective for everybody (e.g. SSRIs seem
only to be effective in 50% of the cases, and is by some considered not
more effictive than therapy). Medication is certainly not a cure all,
and the "did you forget to take your pills" line is not funny to people
who either have to take meds to stay somewhat sane, and certainly
not funny to people for whom there are no effective meds, yet they have
heard this line countless times by "well-meaning" laymen (and so-called
"professionals"). One of the most stupid lines I've ever heard was "not
cooperating with medication" while the prescription was being followed
to the letter. I have no idea what the person was trying to tell, but
the meds were not effective, and that couldn't be the meds, right?

Paul seems to be in it for drawing out discussions, and you seem to be
too eager to assist him. Maybe it's you who needs to control yourself?
I am following this group for a week or so, and the majority of posts
seems to consist of Paul's post and replies to him. One can't just argue
with a troll. And while one could argue that some replies are
educational, it's all quite basic stuff (what I've seen) and not worth
the effort of following the whole thread or threads, it seem to infect
others very rapidly...

-- 
John Bokma                                                               j3b

Blog: http://johnbokma.com/        Perl Consultancy: http://castleamber.com/
Perl for books:    http://johnbokma.com/perl/help-in-exchange-for-books.html

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

#12588

Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 12:30 am, "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>o...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well you remain wrong then. A C++ compiler outputs object code, not machine
>> code or C code.
> 
> You know who's wrong? People who don't take their medication. Remember
> that guy from Norway some months ago? Well, that's what often happens
> when you forget your medication.

Your posts are by far the most disgusting ones on this thread. You don't
contribute anything interesting at all and none of your posts are on topic
(not even considering that this whole discussion is actually off topic).

Tobi

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

#12567

"Paulor@yahoo.co.uk>"  wrote in message 
news:jcdb36$38m$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>
>
>"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:4ee9c1f8$0$4349$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...

>>
>>  Well, big surprise: There isn't that much difference between an object
>> file and an exe file: Both contain machine code *and* ancillary data,
>> mostly related to rebasing/relocating the code and setting function call
>> addresses.
>
>Object files contain object code. It is incorrect to say that an object 
>file is machine code just because the text segment contains opcodes.

It is incorrect to say that an executable file is machine code just because 
some segments contain opcodes. Just like object files, executable files 
contain different segments, not all of them are executable.

>You can, in  the correct context, say that object files contain machine 
>code as the text section notrmally does contain machine specific opcodes. 
>It is incorrect however to suggest this file format is the same as an 
>exectuable.

You can, in the correct context, say that an executable file contains 
machine code
as the executable section normally does contain machine specific opcodes.
It is incorrect however, to assume that these opcodes can be executed 
unmodified,
except in very rare cases that are nowadays no longer used, like the .COM 
files in DOS.
Further, the exe files contain other sections, like data sections, which are 
not opcodes and
cannot be executed by a processor. Even the old fashioned .COM files 
contained data that
were not opcodes.
So, there is a difference between object files and executable files, but the 
difference is not
that only one format consists only of opcodes that can be used unmodified by 
the processor.

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

#12578

"Fred Zwarts (KVI)" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> wrote in message 
news:jcf1va$itm$1@news.albasani.net...
"Paulor@yahoo.co.uk>"  wrote in message
news:jcdb36$38m$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>
>
>"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:4ee9c1f8$0$4349$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...

>>
>>  Well, big surprise: There isn't that much difference between an object
>> file and an exe file: Both contain machine code *and* ancillary data,
>> mostly related to rebasing/relocating the code and setting function call
>> addresses.
>
>Object files contain object code. It is incorrect to say that an object 
>file is machine code just because the text segment contains opcodes.

--It is incorrect to say that an executable file is machine code just 
because
--some segments contain opcodes. Just like object files, executable files
--contain different segments, not all of them are executable.

Nonsense , an executable file is loaded into memory as is.


>You can, in  the correct context, say that object files contain machine 
>code as the text section notrmally does contain machine specific opcodes. 
>It is incorrect however to suggest this file format is the same as an 
>exectuable.

--You can, in the correct context, say that an executable file contains
--machine code
--as the executable section normally does contain machine specific opcodes.
--It is incorrect however, to assume that these opcodes can be executed
--unmodified,
--except in very rare cases that are nowadays no longer used, like the .COM
--files in DOS.

This is absolute bollox, an exe is loaded into memory as is.



--Further, the exe files contain other sections, like data sections, which 
are
--not opcodes and
--cannot be executed by a processor. Even the old fashioned .COM files
--contained data that
--were not opcodes.
--So, there is a difference between object files and executable files, but 
the
--difference is not
--that only one format consists only of opcodes that can be used unmodified 
by
--the processor.

A machine code file containing some data, is predominantly machine code.
A data file contianing some machine code is not predominantly machine code.

The machine is not simply a CPU, a machine is RAM too, not only CPU opcodes 
are machine code.





--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

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

#12589

"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Nonsense , an executable file is loaded into memory as is.

  Then it should be easy to prove it, shouldn't it? Just give us some
official documentation that say so.

  Of course you won't do that. You'll just call us names and say that
you don't have to prove anything.

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

#12638

"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4eeb6b0c$0$4371$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...
> "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Nonsense , an executable file is loaded into memory as is.
>
>  Then it should be easy to prove it, shouldn't it? Just give us some
> official documentation that say so.
>
>  Of course you won't do that. You'll just call us names and say that
> you don't have to prove anything.

i don't know the answer but see we are in a not moderated NG
i think the
loader has to read all the file
so there is the time the file is all in memory as is it in disck
than possibly the loader copy the sections in other memory spaces:
the code section in his space, the memory section in his space
the icon in his space etc
and jump in the code section [if the program run is an executable]

for who they say is smart and who they say is stupid...
for me there is not much difference, there is not much difference
from the most 'smart' and the most 'stupid'
one 'stupid' that know what to say is better than a 'smart' doesn't
know it
so happen that smart act as stupid and stupid as *the most smart*
so i can conclude no one can say stupid to one other one people
we don't know enought

even if someone in the past argued that i'm stupid
i think to be smart
but the bibble cleary say expecially in verse 21
to think himself/herself is smart is not good:

Is {5: 18-25}
18 Guai a coloro che si tirano addosso il castigo
   con corde da buoi
   e il peccato con funi da carro,

19 che dicono “Faccia presto,
   acceleri pure l’opera sua,
   perché la vediamo;
   si facciano più vicini e si compiano
   i progetti del Santo di Israele,
   perché li conosciamo”.

20 Guai a coloro che chiamano
   bene il male e male il bene,
   che cambiano le tenebre in luce e la luce in tenebre,
   che cambiano l’amaro in dolce e il dolce in amaro.

21 Guai a coloro che si credono sapienti
   e si reputano intelligenti.

22 Guai a coloro che sono gagliardi nel bere vino,
   valorosi nel mescere bevande inebrianti,

23 a coloro che assolvono per regali un colpevole
   e privano del suo diritto l’innocente.

24 Perciò, come una lingua di fuoco divora la stoppia
   e una fiamma consuma la paglia,
   così le loro radici diventeranno un marciume
   e la loro fioritura volerà via come polvere,
   perché hanno rigettato la legge del Signore degli eserciti,
   hanno disprezzato la parola del Santo di Israele.

so i would change my think on that

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

#12640

On 18/12/2011 17:07, io_x wrote:
> "Juha Nieminen"<nospam@thanks.invalid>  ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:4eeb6b0c$0$4371$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...
>> "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>>> Nonsense , an executable file is loaded into memory as is.
>>
>>   Then it should be easy to prove it, shouldn't it? Just give us some
>> official documentation that say so.
>>
>>   Of course you won't do that. You'll just call us names and say that
>> you don't have to prove anything.
>
> i don't know the answer but see we are in a not moderated NG
> i think the
> loader has to read all the file
> so there is the time the file is all in memory as is it in disck
> than possibly the loader copy the sections in other memory spaces:
> the code section in his space, the memory section in his space
> the icon in his space etc
> and jump in the code section [if the program run is an executable]
>
> for who they say is smart and who they say is stupid...
> for me there is not much difference, there is not much difference
> from the most 'smart' and the most 'stupid'
> one 'stupid' that know what to say is better than a 'smart' doesn't
> know it
> so happen that smart act as stupid and stupid as *the most smart*
> so i can conclude no one can say stupid to one other one people
> we don't know enought
>
> even if someone in the past argued that i'm stupid
> i think to be smart
> but the bibble cleary say expecially in verse 21
> to think himself/herself is smart is not good:
>
> Is {5: 18-25}
> 18 Guai a coloro che si tirano addosso il castigo
>     con corde da buoi
>     e il peccato con funi da carro,
>
> 19 che dicono “Faccia presto,
>     acceleri pure l’opera sua,
>     perché la vediamo;
>     si facciano più vicini e si compiano
>     i progetti del Santo di Israele,
>     perché li conosciamo”.
>
> 20 Guai a coloro che chiamano
>     bene il male e male il bene,
>     che cambiano le tenebre in luce e la luce in tenebre,
>     che cambiano l’amaro in dolce e il dolce in amaro.
>
> 21 Guai a coloro che si credono sapienti
>     e si reputano intelligenti.
>
> 22 Guai a coloro che sono gagliardi nel bere vino,
>     valorosi nel mescere bevande inebrianti,
>
> 23 a coloro che assolvono per regali un colpevole
>     e privano del suo diritto l’innocente.
>
> 24 Perciò, come una lingua di fuoco divora la stoppia
>     e una fiamma consuma la paglia,
>     così le loro radici diventeranno un marciume
>     e la loro fioritura volerà via come polvere,
>     perché hanno rigettato la legge del Signore degli eserciti,
>     hanno disprezzato la parola del Santo di Israele.
>
> so i would change my think on that

Why should I care about what the bibble says? Stupid bibble. :)

/Leigh

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

#12569

"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> If the wiki article is saying that PE is loaded with a dynamic loader then 
> its probably talking about a DLL. It is certialy not the case that all exe's 
> are loaded with a dynamic linker.

  I happen to know for a fact that .exe files are loaded with a dynamic
linker which performs relocation and rebasing operations as needed (using
the data in the .exe file for that exact purpose). The wikipedia article
also clearly tells you this.

  An .exe file (or any executable in any modern OS for that matter) is
as much "machine code" as an object file: Both contain compiled machine
code plus ancillary data used to set up jump and subfunction call
addresses appropriately. In some systems (such as in Windows) both
actually use the same file format (in Windows' case the PE format),
thus making them even less different.

> I don't really need to post a link to prove you wrong

  Translation: "I can't post a link to any official documentation because
there isn't one that would confirm my assertions."

  It amuses me that I have given actual references, you have given
absolutely none, and only try to defend yourself with laughably weak
"I don't have to give you any references because everybody knows you
are wrong" pretenses.

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

#12576

"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4eeb303d$0$3060$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...
> "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> If the wiki article is saying that PE is loaded with a dynamic loader 
>> then
>> its probably talking about a DLL. It is certialy not the case that all 
>> exe's
>> are loaded with a dynamic linker.
>
>  I happen to know for a fact that .exe files are loaded with a dynamic
> linker which performs relocation and rebasing operations as needed (using
> the data in the .exe file for that exact purpose). The wikipedia article
> also clearly tells you this.
>

Absolute rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loader_(computing)

Please note the subsection on dynamic linkers:
"Dynamic linking loaders are another type of loader that load and link 
shared libraries (like .dll files) to already loaded running programs." 



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

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

#12590

"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>  I happen to know for a fact that .exe files are loaded with a dynamic
>> linker which performs relocation and rebasing operations as needed (using
>> the data in the .exe file for that exact purpose). The wikipedia article
>> also clearly tells you this.
>>
> 
> Absolute rubbish.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loader_(computing)
> 
> Please note the subsection on dynamic linkers:
> "Dynamic linking loaders are another type of loader that load and link 
> shared libraries (like .dll files) to already loaded running programs." 

  Isn't it amusing that you see only what you want to see? You happily
skipped the section that talks about relocating (which goes totally against
your claim that executables are run as-is, without modification).

  Executable files in most modern operating systems contain relocation and
rebasing data, and they always depend on shared libraries, and they are
always loaded with a dynamic linker that performs the relocations and
linking with the shared libraries (by changing function call addresses).

  All Windows executables are in the PE format, which contains header and
reallocation data. The same is true for all unix executables in both the
COFF and ELF formats. They all require dynamic linking to run.

  You didn't even bother to read the article about the PE format, did you?
It says, among other things:

  "A PE file consists of a number of headers and sections that tell the
dynamic linker how to map the file into memory. An executable image
consists of several different regions, each of which require different
memory protection; so the start of each section must be aligned to a
page boundary. For instance, typically the .text section (which holds
program code) is mapped as execute/readonly, and the .data section
(holding global variables) is mapped as no-execute/readwrite. However,
to avoid wasting space, the different sections are not page aligned on
disk. Part of the job of the dynamic linker is to map each section to
memory individually and assign the correct permissions to the
resulting regions, according to the instructions found in the
headers."

  You are still claiming that an exe file can be loaded and run as-is,
without any modification. No, they can't.

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

#12592

"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4eeb6f89$0$4371$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...
> "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>  I happen to know for a fact that .exe files are loaded with a dynamic
>>> linker which performs relocation and rebasing operations as needed 
>>> (using
>>> the data in the .exe file for that exact purpose). The wikipedia article
>>> also clearly tells you this.
>>>
>>
>> Absolute rubbish.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loader_(computing)
>>
>> Please note the subsection on dynamic linkers:
>> "Dynamic linking loaders are another type of loader that load and link
>> shared libraries (like .dll files) to already loaded running programs."
>
>  Isn't it amusing that you see only what you want to see? You happily
> skipped the section that talks about relocating (which goes totally 
> against
> your claim that executables are run as-is, without modification).

The section you have pointed out here clearly says :

"Some computers need relocating loaders, which adjust addresses (pointers) 
in the executable to compensate for variations in the address at which 
loading starts."

These programs are not the norm and they are certainly not your standard 
windows PE executables , which is what you have been spouting on about. The 
page gives an example of an IBM mainframe computer system that uses this 
type of relocating loader, which is still not the same thing as a dynamic 
linker.

>
>  Executable files in most modern operating systems contain relocation and
> rebasing data, and they always depend on shared libraries, and they are
> always loaded with a dynamic linker that performs the relocations and
> linking with the shared libraries (by changing function call addresses).
This is absolute nonsense.

>
>  All Windows executables are in the PE format, which contains header and
> reallocation data. The same is true for all unix executables in both the
> COFF and ELF formats. They all require dynamic linking to run.
Again absolute nonnsese.

>
>  You didn't even bother to read the article about the PE format, did you?
> It says, among other things:
>
>  "A PE file consists of a number of headers and sections that tell the
> dynamic linker how to map the file into memory.

This is only if the PE is  DLLL

 An executable image
> consists of several different regions, each of which require different
> memory protection; so the start of each section must be aligned to a
> page boundary. For instance, typically the .text section (which holds
> program code) is mapped as execute/readonly, and the .data section
> (holding global variables) is mapped as no-execute/readwrite. However,
> to avoid wasting space, the different sections are not page aligned on
> disk. Part of the job of the dynamic linker is to map each section to
> memory individually and assign the correct permissions to the
> resulting regions, according to the instructions found in the
> headers."
>
>  You are still claiming that an exe file can be loaded and run as-is,
> without any modification. No, they can't.

If you can't have a reasonable argument please refrain form posting. You are 
just posting absolute nonsnese and I can even get a good aargument when all 
I can say is absolute bullshit , you don't have a clue what you are speaking 
about.



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

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

#12609

"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The section you have pointed out here clearly says :
> 
> "Some computers need relocating loaders, which adjust addresses (pointers) 
> in the executable to compensate for variations in the address at which 
> loading starts."
> 
> These programs are not the norm and they are certainly not your standard 
> windows PE executables , which is what you have been spouting on about.

  I still find it amusing how you fail to read the articles I refer.

  "PE files do not contain position-independent code. Instead they are
compiled to a preferred base address, and all addresses emitted by the
compiler/linker are fixed ahead of time. If a PE file cannot be loaded
at its preferred address (because it's already taken by something
else), the operating system will rebase it. This involves
recalculating every absolute address and modifying the code to use the
new values."

  PE files are, thus, *exactly* the type of executables you are yourself
quoting above.

  So no, Windows executables cannot be run as-is, without modification.
Of course you will never admit this. (Or alternatively, you will start
lying that you never claimed so.)

>>
>>  Executable files in most modern operating systems contain relocation and
>> rebasing data, and they always depend on shared libraries, and they are
>> always loaded with a dynamic linker that performs the relocations and
>> linking with the shared libraries (by changing function call addresses).
> This is absolute nonsense.

  Then it should be easy for you to prove me wrong, shouldn't it? Please
go ahead. I'll wait.

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

#12619

"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4eec4644$0$3063$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...
> "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> The section you have pointed out here clearly says :
>>
>> "Some computers need relocating loaders, which adjust addresses 
>> (pointers)
>> in the executable to compensate for variations in the address at which
>> loading starts."
>>
>> These programs are not the norm and they are certainly not your standard
>> windows PE executables , which is what you have been spouting on about.
>
>  I still find it amusing how you fail to read the articles I refer.
>
>  "PE files do not contain position-independent code. Instead they are
> compiled to a preferred base address, and all addresses emitted by the
> compiler/linker are fixed ahead of time. If a PE file cannot be loaded
> at its preferred address (because it's already taken by something
> else), the operating system will rebase it. This involves
> recalculating every absolute address and modifying the code to use the
> new values."
>
>  PE files are, thus, *exactly* the type of executables you are yourself
> quoting above.
>
>  So no, Windows executables cannot be run as-is, without modification.
> Of course you will never admit this. (Or alternatively, you will start
> lying that you never claimed so.)
>
What you just posted says the opposite.
It suggests that only if the file cannot be loaded at its preferred address 
it will be relocated. But this is not how most modern systems work anyway, 
modern windows systems use offset addresses not fixed addresses.

And err where does this quote come from ? please supply a reference link 
when you quote something from the internet.

>>>
>>>  Executable files in most modern operating systems contain relocation 
>>> and
>>> rebasing data, and they always depend on shared libraries, and they are
>>> always loaded with a dynamic linker that performs the relocations and
>>> linking with the shared libraries (by changing function call addresses).
>> This is absolute nonsense.
>
>  Then it should be easy for you to prove me wrong, shouldn't it? Please
> go ahead. I'll wait.

I've already proved you wrong, here it is again incase you missed it:

"Dynamic linking loaders are another type of loader that load and link
shared libraries (like .dll files) to already loaded running programs."
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loader_(computing)




--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

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

#12620

On 17/12/2011 14:34, Paul <pchrist wrote:
> "Juha Nieminen"<nospam@thanks.invalid>  wrote in message
> news:4eec4644$0$3063$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...
>> "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>>> The section you have pointed out here clearly says :
>>>
>>> "Some computers need relocating loaders, which adjust addresses
>>> (pointers)
>>> in the executable to compensate for variations in the address at which
>>> loading starts."
>>>
>>> These programs are not the norm and they are certainly not your standard
>>> windows PE executables , which is what you have been spouting on about.
>>
>>   I still find it amusing how you fail to read the articles I refer.
>>
>>   "PE files do not contain position-independent code. Instead they are
>> compiled to a preferred base address, and all addresses emitted by the
>> compiler/linker are fixed ahead of time. If a PE file cannot be loaded
>> at its preferred address (because it's already taken by something
>> else), the operating system will rebase it. This involves
>> recalculating every absolute address and modifying the code to use the
>> new values."
>>
>>   PE files are, thus, *exactly* the type of executables you are yourself
>> quoting above.
>>
>>   So no, Windows executables cannot be run as-is, without modification.
>> Of course you will never admit this. (Or alternatively, you will start
>> lying that you never claimed so.)
>>
> What you just posted says the opposite.
> It suggests that only if the file cannot be loaded at its preferred address
> it will be relocated. But this is not how most modern systems work anyway,
> modern windows systems use offset addresses not fixed addresses.
>
> And err where does this quote come from ? please supply a reference link
> when you quote something from the internet.
>
>>>>
>>>>   Executable files in most modern operating systems contain relocation
>>>> and
>>>> rebasing data, and they always depend on shared libraries, and they are
>>>> always loaded with a dynamic linker that performs the relocations and
>>>> linking with the shared libraries (by changing function call addresses).
>>> This is absolute nonsense.
>>
>>   Then it should be easy for you to prove me wrong, shouldn't it? Please
>> go ahead. I'll wait.
>
> I've already proved you wrong, here it is again incase you missed it:
>
> "Dynamic linking loaders are another type of loader that load and link
> shared libraries (like .dll files) to already loaded running programs."
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loader_(computing)

Try using your brain: any references to exported DLL functions within 
the .EXE itself also need relocating by the dynamic linker when the DLL 
is loaded into the .EXE process address space.

Object files contain relocatable machine code as do .EXEs and .DLLs.

Get a clue. :)

/Leigh

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web