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 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 16:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87aa7456wd.fsf@castleamber.com> |
| In reply to | #12130 |
"Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@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) -- 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]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dJKdnZpTyZMUckLTnZ2dnUVZ8hqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12133 |
On 07/12/2011 22:55, John Bokma wrote: > "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@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) Paul Reid is a known troll with limited knowledge and arguing with him is pointless. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 20:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87obvj3hbz.fsf@castleamber.com> |
| In reply to | #12134 |
Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes: > Paul Reid is a known troll with limited knowledge and arguing with him > is pointless. Thanks for the warning (new here) :-) -- 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]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 05:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbpgqv$14d6$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12141 |
"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message news:87obvj3hbz.fsf@castleamber.com... > Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes: > >> Paul Reid is a known troll with limited knowledge and arguing with him >> is pointless. > > Thanks for the warning (new here) :-) > ^^^ hoofter ^^^ --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 05:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbph7q$14n0$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12141 |
"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message news:87obvj3hbz.fsf@castleamber.com... > Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes: > >> Paul Reid is a known troll with limited knowledge and arguing with him >> is pointless. > > Thanks for the warning (new here) :-) > > -- > John Bokma > j3b > Do you want to suck Leigh the faggot jonstons dick you little fuckin hoofter? Don't cooment on me again unless you undestand what your fuckin talking about you little fuckin faggot. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 11:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87obvjrmlc.fsf@castleamber.com> |
| In reply to | #12143 |
"Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > "John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message > news:87obvj3hbz.fsf@castleamber.com... >> Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes: >> >>> Paul Reid is a known troll with limited knowledge and arguing with him >>> is pointless. >> >> Thanks for the warning (new here) :-) >> >> -- >> John Bokma >> j3b >> > > Do you want to suck Leigh the faggot jonstons dick you little fuckin > hoofter? > > Don't cooment on me again unless you undestand what your fuckin talking > about you little fuckin faggot. You couldn't have made a stronger case to justify the warning. Off you go. -- 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]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbrlnb$10v2$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12191 |
"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message news:87obvjrmlc.fsf@castleamber.com... > "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > >> "John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message >> news:87obvj3hbz.fsf@castleamber.com... >>> Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes: >>> >>>> Paul Reid is a known troll with limited knowledge and arguing with him >>>> is pointless. >>> >>> Thanks for the warning (new here) :-) >>> >>> -- >>> John Bokma >>> j3b >>> >> >> Do you want to suck Leigh the faggot jonstons dick you little fuckin >> hoofter? >> >> Don't cooment on me again unless you undestand what your fuckin talking >> about you little fuckin faggot. > > You couldn't have made a stronger case to justify the warning. Off you > go. > PROFANITY PROFANITY PROFANITY WHAT PART OF FUCK OFF YOU LITTLE FAGGOT CUNT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ? --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-10 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnje7kpo.q8l.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #12141 |
On Thu, 2011-12-08, John Bokma wrote: > Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> writes: > >> Paul Reid is a known troll with limited knowledge and arguing with him >> is pointless. > > Thanks for the warning (new here) :-) Well, check for yourself and make up your own mind. Leigh Johnston and Paul have fought a public battle here for at least a year. I have them both killfiled at the moment. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 16:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ee4c59d$0$14718$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl> |
| In reply to | #12141 |
Op 08-Dec-11 3:52, John Bokma schreef: > Leigh Johnston<leigh@i42.co.uk> writes: > >> Paul Reid is a known troll with limited knowledge and arguing with him >> is pointless. > > Thanks for the warning (new here) :-) When someone resorts to profanity and personal attacks you can be pretty sure that person has run out of arguments to support their position but is not man enough to admit he's wrong. Some people reach that point very quickly. The signal to noise ratio of this newsgroup improves significantly if you killfile Paul and those who feel compelled to reply to his postings (Leigh Johnston, Juha Nieminen).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 01:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbp5mk$m6v$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12133 |
"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message news:87aa7456wd.fsf@castleamber.com... > "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@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. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 09:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee084f9$0$4394$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12140 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message >> 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. I still find it puzzling why you are deliberately doing this. You *know* that you will look like a complete idiot, but you still do it nevertheless. Either you find this amusing, or once you have made an error, you simply cannot stop, no matter what. Is it a mental illness? A birth defect affecting brain processes? An extreme personality disorder? Mental retardation? It clearly comes and goes in waves. Sometimes you act like a complete retard, sometimes there are long relatively calm periods. Is this a bit like a manic-depressive disorder?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 12:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Xns9FB5D2DDED140myfirstnameosapriee@216.196.109.131> |
| In reply to | #12155 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in news:4ee084f9$0$4394$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi: Hi Juha and Leigh, Could you do a favor to other people (whose killfiles are working) and restrain yourself from answering Paul's posts? Thanks! Paavo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 06:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee1ab3b$0$2805$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12198 |
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote: > Could you do a favor to other people (whose killfiles are working) and > restrain yourself from answering Paul's posts? Why? If he spouts complete nonsense and nobody rectifies it, a third-party reading the thread might end up believing it. After all, if he makes a claim and nobody responds to it, the claim must therefore be correct and accepted by everybody else, doesn't it? The purpose of killfiles is to filter out spam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 19:40 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <9kdorjF2imU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12233 |
On 12/ 9/11 07:31 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Paavo Helde<myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote: >> Could you do a favor to other people (whose killfiles are working) and >> restrain yourself from answering Paul's posts? > > Why? > > If he spouts complete nonsense and nobody rectifies it, a third-party > reading the thread might end up believing it. After all, if he makes a > claim and nobody responds to it, the claim must therefore be correct and > accepted by everybody else, doesn't it? > > The purpose of killfiles is to filter out spam. As well as idiots. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 23:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4fcc92b8-2d0e-4608-9746-7dc9b394a857@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12233 |
On Dec 9, 6:31 am, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote: > The purpose of killfiles is to filter out spam. Killfiles predate spam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 02:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Xns9FB66AC21A08myfirstnameosapriee@216.196.109.131> |
| In reply to | #12233 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in news:4ee1ab3b$0$2805 $7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi: > Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote: >> Could you do a favor to other people (whose killfiles are working) and >> restrain yourself from answering Paul's posts? > > Why? > > If he spouts complete nonsense and nobody rectifies it, a third-party > reading the thread might end up believing it. I guess this falls under http://xkcd.com/386/ :) Cheers Paavo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 07:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2089243418345105696.241033troplin-bluewin.ch@news.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12198 |
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote: > > Hi Juha and Leigh, > > Could you do a favor to other people (whose killfiles are working) and > restrain yourself from answering Paul's posts? > > Thanks! > Paavo If you subtract all that profanity, Pauls arguments are usually not even that bad. I mean, he is actually right. A compiler produces object code. Object code however may contain (and usually does) a special form of machine code (relocatable, not directly executable). So both are right and there is really no need for such stupid "discussions" that just drive away people (especially the new ones) from this list. I know, Paul has a bad reputation, but it does not feel right to "warn" other people (that don't know him already) from responding to him. He will probably write something anyway, so give him a chance to write something useful. Tobi PS: Paavo, I just used your post as a starting point, but you're obviously not the one that I meant with most of the comments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 23:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c715c5f-6c2c-4306-9294-c777266750a3@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12237 |
On Dec 9, 7:23 am, Tobias Müller <trop...@bluewin.ch> wrote: > I know, Paul has a bad reputation, but it does not feel right to "warn" > other people (that don't know him already) from responding to him. So don't do it then. I, however, have no qualms about warning people about sociopaths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 09:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee1d3c2$0$2772$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12237 |
Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> wrote: > If you subtract all that profanity, Pauls arguments are usually not even > that bad. I mean, he is actually right. A compiler produces object code. > Object code however may contain (and usually does) a special form of > machine code (relocatable, not directly executable). You could make the same argument from executable files as well. In most modern operating systems an executable file is not something that is simply loaded into memory and executed without modification. Instead, executables are loaded and modified by a dynamic linker (which is, basically, a routine that loads the contents of the executable and then modifies it so that far jumps, shared library calls and system calls point to the proper places). The executable file still contains machine code. Just because some *addresses* inside this machine code are modified at the loading stage doesn't make it less machine code. An object file is typically no different. It's just a different routine (in this case usually a static linker) which does the modifications (in order to build the final executable binary).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 11:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbspq4$2eth$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12244 |
"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message news:4ee1d3c2$0$2772$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... > Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> wrote: >> If you subtract all that profanity, Pauls arguments are usually not even >> that bad. I mean, he is actually right. A compiler produces object code. >> Object code however may contain (and usually does) a special form of >> machine code (relocatable, not directly executable). > > You could make the same argument from executable files as well. In most > modern operating systems an executable file is not something that is > simply > loaded into memory and executed without modification. Instead, executables > are loaded and modified by a dynamic linker (which is, basically, a > routine > that loads the contents of the executable and then modifies it so that far > jumps, shared library calls and system calls point to the proper places). > > The executable file still contains machine code. Just because some > *addresses* inside this machine code are modified at the loading stage > doesn't make it less machine code. > > An object file is typically no different. It's just a different routine > (in this case usually a static linker) which does the modifications (in > order > to build the final executable binary). Absolute bollocks and total bullshit. Plonk. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web