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 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 12:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee1fdb3$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12248 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Absolute bollocks and total bullshit. Nicely argumented. (You probably don't even know what a dynamic linker is.) > Plonk. Do you know how many times you have said that in response to a post of mine, yet you still haven't done it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 10:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbsplh$2em1$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12237 |
"Tobias Müller" <troplin@bluewin.ch> wrote in message news:2089243418345105696.241033troplin-bluewin.ch@news.aioe.org... > 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. > No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may contain code that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot be read by any cpu on this planet. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 12:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee20074$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12247 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may contain code > that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot be read > by any cpu on this planet. I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an object file contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he meant that an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical sociopath manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. Later you perhaps realized your mistake (in other words, object files do typically contain compiled machine code, which the linker uses to build the final executable), but now it's too late, you can't admit your mistake and now you are, as usual, making a fool of yourself trying to weasel yourself out of yet another situation, but only digging a deeper and deeper hole. This became pretty clear when you opposed the claim that executable files are also modified at startup by the OS (using a so-called dynamic linker, which sets far jump and system function addresses appropriately), and hence are in this sense somewhat similar to object files. If you had made a wikipedia search for "dynamic linker" and read the article instead of spouting nonsense, you would have saved yourself yet another instance of embarrassment, but of course that kind of behavior is impossible for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 12:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee202aa$0$4355$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12253 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: > and now you are, as usual, making a fool of yourself trying to weasel > yourself out of yet another situation, but only digging a deeper and > deeper hole. Btw, I'm curious to see how long it will take before you start a new thread where you try to defend your mistake and insult everybody with namecalling. My bet is that at most 48 hours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 04:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <15631783.1237.1323435320188.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prnx7> |
| In reply to | #12253 |
On Friday, December 9, 2011 8:35:00 PM UTC+8, Juha Nieminen wrote: > "Paul" > o...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may contain code > > that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot be read > > by any cpu on this planet. > > I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an object file > contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he meant that > an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical sociopath > manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. > > Later you perhaps realized your mistake (in other words, object files > do typically contain compiled machine code, which the linker uses to build > the final executable), but now it's too late, you can't admit your mistake > and now you are, as usual, making a fool of yourself trying to weasel > yourself out of yet another situation, but only digging a deeper and > deeper hole. > > This became pretty clear when you opposed the claim that executable files > are also modified at startup by the OS (using a so-called dynamic linker, > which sets far jump and system function addresses appropriately), and hence > are in this sense somewhat similar to object files. If you had made a > wikipedia search for "dynamic linker" and read the article instead of > spouting nonsense, you would have saved yourself yet another instance of > embarrassment, but of course that kind of behavior is impossible for you. Are you talking about trivial terms or names in writing compilers for virtual machines ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 14:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbt5ga$31eh$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12253 |
"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message news:4ee20074$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... > "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may contain >> code >> that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot be >> read >> by any cpu on this planet. > > I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an object file > contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he meant > that > an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical > sociopath > manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. No what was said was that a compiler directly outputs machine code. Read back you bafoon. <snip> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 14:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <M_GdnRniktjVgX_TnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12261 |
On 09/12/2011 14:20, Paul <pchrist wrote: > "Juha Nieminen"<nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message > news:4ee20074$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >> "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may contain >>> code >>> that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot be >>> read >>> by any cpu on this planet. >> >> I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an object file >> contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he meant >> that >> an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical >> sociopath >> manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. > > No what was said was that a compiler directly outputs machine code. > > Read back you bafoon.<snip> A compiler directly outputs objects files and object files typically contain relocatable machine code ergo compilers typically directly output machine code. Simple. Logic. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 14:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbt7nn$2p6$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12262 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:M_GdnRniktjVgX_TnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 09/12/2011 14:20, Paul <pchrist wrote: >> "Juha Nieminen"<nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >> news:4ee20074$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>> "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may contain >>>> code >>>> that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot be >>>> read >>>> by any cpu on this planet. >>> >>> I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an object >>> file >>> contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he meant >>> that >>> an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical >>> sociopath >>> manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. >> >> No what was said was that a compiler directly outputs machine code. >> >> Read back you bafoon.<snip> > > A compiler directly outputs objects files and object files typically > contain relocatable machine code ergo compilers typically directly output > machine code. > If a newgroup post contains C++ code , do you call that message a C++ code file? No! If a file has a section that contains some machine code, this doesn't neccessarily make that file machine code. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee22523$0$4377$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12263 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > If a newgroup post contains C++ code , do you call that message a C++ code > file? No! > If a file has a section that contains some machine code, this doesn't > neccessarily make that file machine code. Stop pretending. Just admit that you confused "machine code" with "executable file". Stop digging the hole deeper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-10 07:59 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <9kf447Faj3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12266 |
On 12/10/11 04:11 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> If a newgroup post contains C++ code , do you call that message a C++ code >> file? No! >> If a file has a section that contains some machine code, this doesn't >> neccessarily make that file machine code. > > Stop pretending. Just admit that you confused "machine code" with > "executable file". Stop digging the hole deeper. You know he can't stop! -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 15:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a42dnV8sHekGuX_TnZ2dnUVZ8lOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12263 |
On 09/12/2011 14:58, Paul <pchrist wrote: > "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:M_GdnRniktjVgX_TnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 09/12/2011 14:20, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>> "Juha Nieminen"<nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:4ee20074$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>>> "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may contain >>>>> code >>>>> that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot be >>>>> read >>>>> by any cpu on this planet. >>>> >>>> I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an object >>>> file >>>> contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he meant >>>> that >>>> an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical >>>> sociopath >>>> manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. >>> >>> No what was said was that a compiler directly outputs machine code. >>> >>> Read back you bafoon.<snip> >> >> A compiler directly outputs objects files and object files typically >> contain relocatable machine code ergo compilers typically directly output >> machine code. >> > > If a newgroup post contains C++ code , do you call that message a C++ code > file? No! > If a file has a section that contains some machine code, this doesn't > neccessarily make that file machine code. Earlier I posted: "A linker links object files produced by the compiler together and an object file contains machine code." To which you replied: "Object files do not contain machine code. * Shakes head in disbelief*" So you are now finally admitting your mistake: objects files typically do indeed contain machine code; well done. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 19:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbtnvt$pns$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12267 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:a42dnV8sHekGuX_TnZ2dnUVZ8lOdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 09/12/2011 14:58, Paul <pchrist wrote: >> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:M_GdnRniktjVgX_TnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 09/12/2011 14:20, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>> "Juha Nieminen"<nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:4ee20074$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>>>> "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may >>>>>> contain >>>>>> code >>>>>> that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot be >>>>>> read >>>>>> by any cpu on this planet. >>>>> >>>>> I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an object >>>>> file >>>>> contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he meant >>>>> that >>>>> an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical >>>>> sociopath >>>>> manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. >>>> >>>> No what was said was that a compiler directly outputs machine code. >>>> >>>> Read back you bafoon.<snip> >>> >>> A compiler directly outputs objects files and object files typically >>> contain relocatable machine code ergo compilers typically directly >>> output >>> machine code. >>> >> >> If a newgroup post contains C++ code , do you call that message a C++ >> code >> file? No! >> If a file has a section that contains some machine code, this doesn't >> neccessarily make that file machine code. > > Earlier I posted: > > "A linker links object files produced by the compiler together and an > object file contains machine code." > > To which you replied: > > "Object files do not contain machine code. * Shakes head in disbelief*" > > So you are now finally admitting your mistake: objects files typically do > indeed contain machine code; well done. > The compiler outputs a file that contains object code, not machine code. You think you being smart calling object files(which contain object code) machine code. Object code != machine code. Object code is object code. Machine code is machine code They are different things, understand this please and stop calling object code, machine code. you fuckin half wit. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 19:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dYydnVEIL4a1-n_TnZ2dnUVZ7o-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12270 |
On 09/12/2011 19:36, Paul <pchrist wrote: > "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:a42dnV8sHekGuX_TnZ2dnUVZ8lOdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 09/12/2011 14:58, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:M_GdnRniktjVgX_TnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> On 09/12/2011 14:20, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>> "Juha Nieminen"<nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> news:4ee20074$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>>>>> "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may >>>>>>> contain >>>>>>> code >>>>>>> that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot be >>>>>>> read >>>>>>> by any cpu on this planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an object >>>>>> file >>>>>> contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he meant >>>>>> that >>>>>> an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical >>>>>> sociopath >>>>>> manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. >>>>> >>>>> No what was said was that a compiler directly outputs machine code. >>>>> >>>>> Read back you bafoon.<snip> >>>> >>>> A compiler directly outputs objects files and object files typically >>>> contain relocatable machine code ergo compilers typically directly >>>> output >>>> machine code. >>>> >>> >>> If a newgroup post contains C++ code , do you call that message a C++ >>> code >>> file? No! >>> If a file has a section that contains some machine code, this doesn't >>> neccessarily make that file machine code. >> >> Earlier I posted: >> >> "A linker links object files produced by the compiler together and an >> object file contains machine code." >> >> To which you replied: >> >> "Object files do not contain machine code. * Shakes head in disbelief*" >> >> So you are now finally admitting your mistake: objects files typically do >> indeed contain machine code; well done. >> > > The compiler outputs a file that contains object code, not machine code. > > You think you being smart calling object files(which contain object code) > machine code. > Object code != machine code. > Object code is object code. > Machine code is machine code > They are different things, understand this please and stop calling object > code, machine code. you fuckin half wit. Oh so you were not admitting your mistake after all; oh well, not too surprising considering that you are so dense that you have your own event horizon. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-10 10:03 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <9kfbcmFaj3U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12271 |
On 12/10/11 08:53 AM, Leigh Johnston wrote: > > Oh so you were not admitting your mistake after all; oh well, not too > surprising considering that you are so dense that you have your own > event horizon. Ask him how "object code" gets converted to "machine code". That should provide some more amusement. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 21:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aLqdne4L0cGl5H_TnZ2dnUVZ8tudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12272 |
On 09/12/2011 21:03, Ian Collins wrote: > On 12/10/11 08:53 AM, Leigh Johnston wrote: >> >> Oh so you were not admitting your mistake after all; oh well, not too >> surprising considering that you are so dense that you have your own >> event horizon. > > Ask him how "object code" gets converted to "machine code". That should > provide some more amusement. Life's too short. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 14:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8733767.1384.1323468388722.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prnx7> |
| In reply to | #12272 |
On Saturday, December 10, 2011 5:03:18 AM UTC+8, Ian Collins wrote: > On 12/10/11 08:53 AM, Leigh Johnston wrote: > > > > Oh so you were not admitting your mistake after all; oh well, not too > > surprising considering that you are so dense that you have your own > > event horizon. > > Ask him how "object code" gets converted to "machine code". That should > provide some more amusement. > > -- > Ian Collins A real machine and a virtual machine are different. I don't like static bound libs in unix. Dynamical linked libraries eat memory slowly than static bound ones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbu46r$1a4l$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12272 |
"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9kfbcmFaj3U3@mid.individual.net... > On 12/10/11 08:53 AM, Leigh Johnston wrote: >> >> Oh so you were not admitting your mistake after all; oh well, not too >> surprising considering that you are so dense that you have your own >> event horizon. > > Ask him how "object code" gets converted to "machine code". That should > provide some more amusement. > You didn't even know there was a plural of "standard" before I told you , so keep your nose out. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbu4rt$1avm$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12271 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:dYydnVEIL4a1-n_TnZ2dnUVZ7o-dnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 09/12/2011 19:36, Paul <pchrist wrote: >> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:a42dnV8sHekGuX_TnZ2dnUVZ8lOdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 09/12/2011 14:58, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:M_GdnRniktjVgX_TnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>> On 09/12/2011 14:20, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>>> "Juha Nieminen"<nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>> news:4ee20074$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>>>>>> "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may >>>>>>>> contain >>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>> that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> read >>>>>>>> by any cpu on this planet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an >>>>>>> object >>>>>>> file >>>>>>> contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he >>>>>>> meant >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical >>>>>>> sociopath >>>>>>> manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. >>>>>> >>>>>> No what was said was that a compiler directly outputs machine code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Read back you bafoon.<snip> >>>>> >>>>> A compiler directly outputs objects files and object files typically >>>>> contain relocatable machine code ergo compilers typically directly >>>>> output >>>>> machine code. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If a newgroup post contains C++ code , do you call that message a C++ >>>> code >>>> file? No! >>>> If a file has a section that contains some machine code, this doesn't >>>> neccessarily make that file machine code. >>> >>> Earlier I posted: >>> >>> "A linker links object files produced by the compiler together and an >>> object file contains machine code." >>> >>> To which you replied: >>> >>> "Object files do not contain machine code. * Shakes head in disbelief*" >>> >>> So you are now finally admitting your mistake: objects files typically >>> do >>> indeed contain machine code; well done. >>> >> >> The compiler outputs a file that contains object code, not machine code. >> >> You think you being smart calling object files(which contain object code) >> machine code. >> Object code != machine code. >> Object code is object code. >> Machine code is machine code >> They are different things, understand this please and stop calling object >> code, machine code. you fuckin half wit. > > Oh so you were not admitting your mistake after all; oh well, not too > surprising considering that you are so dense that you have your own event > horizon. > What mistake? The only mistake is yours here. What part of your child like brain makes you think that object code and machine code are the same thing? This is obviously what you are suggesting. You obviously think that a compilers' output is machine code yet also object code, so ask yourself...why do they have different names? Why distinguish between any different coding specificatons at all . All code is the same and at the end of the day as it will all be read by some machine after enough translations. Get a life Leigh, go away and learn about templates or something. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 23:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <L5udnSYSm7coBn_TnZ2dnUVZ8g2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12277 |
On 09/12/2011 23:15, Paul <pchrist wrote: > "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:dYydnVEIL4a1-n_TnZ2dnUVZ7o-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 09/12/2011 19:36, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:a42dnV8sHekGuX_TnZ2dnUVZ8lOdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> On 09/12/2011 14:58, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>> news:M_GdnRniktjVgX_TnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>> On 09/12/2011 14:20, Paul<pchrist wrote: >>>>>>> "Juha Nieminen"<nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:4ee20074$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>>>>>>> "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may >>>>>>>>> contain >>>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>>> that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it cannot >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> read >>>>>>>>> by any cpu on this planet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an >>>>>>>> object >>>>>>>> file >>>>>>>> contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he >>>>>>>> meant >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical >>>>>>>> sociopath >>>>>>>> manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No what was said was that a compiler directly outputs machine code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read back you bafoon.<snip> >>>>>> >>>>>> A compiler directly outputs objects files and object files typically >>>>>> contain relocatable machine code ergo compilers typically directly >>>>>> output >>>>>> machine code. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If a newgroup post contains C++ code , do you call that message a C++ >>>>> code >>>>> file? No! >>>>> If a file has a section that contains some machine code, this doesn't >>>>> neccessarily make that file machine code. >>>> >>>> Earlier I posted: >>>> >>>> "A linker links object files produced by the compiler together and an >>>> object file contains machine code." >>>> >>>> To which you replied: >>>> >>>> "Object files do not contain machine code. * Shakes head in disbelief*" >>>> >>>> So you are now finally admitting your mistake: objects files typically >>>> do >>>> indeed contain machine code; well done. >>>> >>> >>> The compiler outputs a file that contains object code, not machine code. >>> >>> You think you being smart calling object files(which contain object code) >>> machine code. >>> Object code != machine code. >>> Object code is object code. >>> Machine code is machine code >>> They are different things, understand this please and stop calling object >>> code, machine code. you fuckin half wit. >> >> Oh so you were not admitting your mistake after all; oh well, not too >> surprising considering that you are so dense that you have your own event >> horizon. >> > What mistake? > The only mistake is yours here. > > What part of your child like brain makes you think that object code and > machine code are the same thing? > This is obviously what you are suggesting. > You obviously think that a compilers' output is machine code yet also object > code, so ask yourself...why do they have different names? Why distinguish > between any different coding specificatons at all . All code is the same and > at the end of the day as it will all be read by some machine after enough > translations. I hate repeating myself but you seem to have memory problems so again from Wikipedia: "An object file is a file containing relocatable format /machine code/ that is usually not directly executable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_file > > Get a life Leigh, go away and learn about templates or something. Get a life? I am not the one trolling newsgroups with limited knowledge. I have probably forgotten more about C++ template than you will ever be able to learn. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-10 01:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbudvp$1nk7$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12279 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message
news:L5udnSYSm7coBn_TnZ2dnUVZ8g2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 09/12/2011 23:15, Paul <pchrist wrote:
>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:dYydnVEIL4a1-n_TnZ2dnUVZ7o-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 09/12/2011 19:36, Paul<pchrist wrote:
>>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:a42dnV8sHekGuX_TnZ2dnUVZ8lOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 09/12/2011 14:58, Paul<pchrist wrote:
>>>>>> "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:M_GdnRniktjVgX_TnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> On 09/12/2011 14:20, Paul<pchrist wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Juha Nieminen"<nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4ee20074$0$3105$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...
>>>>>>>>> "Paul"<pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> No both are not right. Object code is not machine code, it may
>>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>> that resembles machine code but it's not machine code as it
>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>>>> by any cpu on this planet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think I know what happened here. When someone said that an
>>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>>>> contains compiled machined code, you erroneously thought that he
>>>>>>>>> meant
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> an object file is directly executable as-is. Thus in your typical
>>>>>>>>> sociopath
>>>>>>>>> manner you loudly and proudly objected to the notion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No what was said was that a compiler directly outputs machine code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read back you bafoon.<snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A compiler directly outputs objects files and object files typically
>>>>>>> contain relocatable machine code ergo compilers typically directly
>>>>>>> output
>>>>>>> machine code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a newgroup post contains C++ code , do you call that message a
>>>>>> C++
>>>>>> code
>>>>>> file? No!
>>>>>> If a file has a section that contains some machine code, this doesn't
>>>>>> neccessarily make that file machine code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Earlier I posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A linker links object files produced by the compiler together and an
>>>>> object file contains machine code."
>>>>>
>>>>> To which you replied:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Object files do not contain machine code. * Shakes head in
>>>>> disbelief*"
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are now finally admitting your mistake: objects files typically
>>>>> do
>>>>> indeed contain machine code; well done.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The compiler outputs a file that contains object code, not machine
>>>> code.
>>>>
>>>> You think you being smart calling object files(which contain object
>>>> code)
>>>> machine code.
>>>> Object code != machine code.
>>>> Object code is object code.
>>>> Machine code is machine code
>>>> They are different things, understand this please and stop calling
>>>> object
>>>> code, machine code. you fuckin half wit.
>>>
>>> Oh so you were not admitting your mistake after all; oh well, not too
>>> surprising considering that you are so dense that you have your own
>>> event
>>> horizon.
>>>
>> What mistake?
>> The only mistake is yours here.
>>
>> What part of your child like brain makes you think that object code and
>> machine code are the same thing?
>> This is obviously what you are suggesting.
>> You obviously think that a compilers' output is machine code yet also
>> object
>> code, so ask yourself...why do they have different names? Why distinguish
>> between any different coding specificatons at all . All code is the same
>> and
>> at the end of the day as it will all be read by some machine after enough
>> translations.
>
> I hate repeating myself but you seem to have memory problems so again from
> Wikipedia:
>
> "An object file is a file containing relocatable format /machine code/
> that is usually not directly executable."
>
We've already estaiblished what may be contained within an object file. The
problem is that your limited brain capacity doesn't allow you to understand
that 'containing reallocatable format machine code' doesn't actually mean
the that the file, as a whole, is machine code.
I have a windows machine and VC++, ok so I compile a basic program and
produce an object file.
How exactly do you run this object file if it is trully machine code?
Are you suggesting its machine code but it cannot be run on any single
machine on the planet?
You are suggesting that because it contains machine code it IS machine code.
The purpose of the file is not to be executed as machine code. Likewise the
purpose of this text message is not intended as C++ code but it contains C++
code look...
int main(){
/*blah blah blah*/.
}
Does the inclusion of C++ code in this file make it a C++ code file? Thats
how ridiculous your fuckin argument is numbskull.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web