Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #101543 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Fernando D. Bozzo" <fdbozzo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-12 11:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-13 23:46 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 190 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Naming convention for structs and types "Fernando D. Bozzo" <fdbozzo@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 11:48 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 11:58 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 01:35 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-12 17:43 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 02:19 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 19:26 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Fernando D. Bozzo" <fdbozzo@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 00:28 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 10:56 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 12:23 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-13 12:49 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 05:03 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-13 16:00 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 18:28 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-13 18:58 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 14:07 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-14 14:31 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 09:20 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-13 18:47 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 10:02 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-13 21:42 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 12:55 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-13 13:09 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 21:01 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-12 17:48 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 19:35 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-12 19:45 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 19:51 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-12 21:12 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-13 12:53 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-13 08:59 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-13 18:48 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-13 18:03 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 12:05 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-13 19:30 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 13:00 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-13 10:43 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 18:52 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-13 12:56 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-14 10:54 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-13 22:00 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-14 11:18 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 00:59 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-13 17:12 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:47 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 01:36 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 11:26 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:11 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2017-01-15 08:33 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-15 02:52 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-01-15 14:48 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 12:07 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:40 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 11:28 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 11:48 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-01-14 13:17 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 14:21 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 13:27 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 14:00 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:11 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:12 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 16:18 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 16:31 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 18:50 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 19:48 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 10:15 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 20:12 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 23:31 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-14 10:28 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 18:52 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-14 14:49 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-14 14:41 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 23:03 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2017-01-15 08:41 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-16 20:01 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-17 00:19 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-17 00:29 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-17 09:12 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-17 11:59 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-17 13:16 +0000
OT: Bash tab completion (was: Naming convention for structs and types) Andreas Perstinger <andipersti@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 13:27 +0000
Re: OT: Bash tab completion BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-17 13:59 +0000
Re: OT: Bash tab completion David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-17 15:49 +0100
Re: OT: Bash tab completion fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 07:06 -0800
Re: OT: Bash tab completion fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 07:43 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-17 15:18 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-17 19:26 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-17 21:53 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 20:56 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-17 21:38 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 14:22 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-17 23:43 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-18 00:33 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-18 11:03 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-18 12:15 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-18 13:59 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-18 15:45 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-18 17:28 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-18 09:30 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-18 23:18 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-17 21:22 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-18 12:47 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 08:11 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 17:17 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 09:47 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 21:20 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-18 22:26 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-19 00:31 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-18 15:41 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-18 23:58 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-17 11:49 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-17 21:56 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-17 13:18 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-18 12:50 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-18 07:51 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-17 19:50 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-17 21:59 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-18 17:51 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 12:15 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-19 07:52 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 12:09 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 13:26 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 08:10 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-14 12:28 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 10:17 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-13 15:12 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-14 12:31 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-13 16:03 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-13 15:57 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-14 13:29 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-14 10:45 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 12:19 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-16 15:22 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 16:35 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-17 17:02 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-17 20:57 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-17 08:47 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-18 08:03 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 07:04 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-18 08:01 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 11:47 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-17 22:16 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 15:44 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-18 17:59 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 04:42 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-19 07:57 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 11:22 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-18 13:36 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 05:07 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-18 16:09 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 07:36 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-18 17:32 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-18 17:55 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-19 22:28 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-20 08:36 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 04:27 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 12:01 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 20:11 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-12 12:50 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 21:02 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-12 13:26 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 21:35 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 16:37 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-13 12:57 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 16:38 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-13 17:52 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 20:07 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 12:45 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-12 13:01 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types jadill33@gmail.com - 2017-01-12 13:57 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 13:59 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-12 15:08 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-14 10:33 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-14 15:20 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 21:31 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-13 19:43 +1300
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Fernando D. Bozzo" <fdbozzo@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 01:00 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-13 13:03 -0500
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Fernando D. Bozzo" <fdbozzo@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 16:02 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 13:36 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Fernando D. Bozzo" <fdbozzo@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 05:22 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 17:27 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 21:05 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-19 09:48 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-19 13:31 -0500
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-19 21:18 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-22 17:10 +0000
Re: Naming convention for structs and types David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-22 18:27 +0100
Re: Naming convention for structs and types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-13 12:49 -0500
Re: Naming convention for structs and types supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-13 09:55 -0800
Re: Naming convention for structs and types "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 23:46 +0800
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 12:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o5nkie$vq0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #102080 |
On 17/01/17 22:22, BartC wrote: > On 17/01/2017 20:53, David Brown wrote: >> On 17/01/17 20:26, BartC wrote: >>> On 17/01/2017 14:18, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 17/01/17 12:59, BartC wrote: >>> >>>> The standard Linux shell requires you to press >>>> the "C" key for this auto-completion >>> >>> I don't understand. You mean "C" as a special command for >>> tab-completion, or "c" to manually finish off the name? But never >>> mind... >>> >> >> The "C" key to finish off the name, obviously. > > You mean, putting the "c" at the end of "hello." to end up with > "hello.c"? And minding you type "c" and not "C" as that will probably > not work. > Sometimes this is like talking to a particularly dim and stubborn child. Yes, the /C/ key. If you look at your keyboard, it has a capital "C" on it. When you press it, a /small/ "c" appears, just like magic. Of course, you should not have the caps lock on when you do this - if you accidentally got a capital "C", then delete it (using the "Backspace" key), turn the caps lock off by pressing the "Caps Lock" key, and try again. > If that's 'auto-completion' then I'd get my money back if I was you! > I see what you mean. Pressing a single "C" key is /far/ harder and more time consuming than pressing the "Tab" key a dozen times and rolling through all the possibilities, reading each one, and remembering to stop at the right point. I believe it is that confusion about upper case "C" and lower case "c" that is the key to all this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ec3fb844-a983-4b21-a242-996a26abca84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #102108 |
W dniu środa, 18 stycznia 2017 12:48:06 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > On 17/01/17 22:22, BartC wrote: > > On 17/01/2017 20:53, David Brown wrote: > >> On 17/01/17 20:26, BartC wrote: > >>> On 17/01/2017 14:18, David Brown wrote: > >>>> On 17/01/17 12:59, BartC wrote: > >>> > >>>> The standard Linux shell requires you to press > >>>> the "C" key for this auto-completion > >>> > >>> I don't understand. You mean "C" as a special command for > >>> tab-completion, or "c" to manually finish off the name? But never > >>> mind... > >>> > >> > >> The "C" key to finish off the name, obviously. > > > > You mean, putting the "c" at the end of "hello." to end up with > > "hello.c"? And minding you type "c" and not "C" as that will probably > > not work. > > > > Sometimes this is like talking to a particularly dim and stubborn child. > for me it looks like primitive drunks talking to normal fellow ;C > Yes, the /C/ key. If you look at your keyboard, it has a capital "C" on > it. When you press it, a /small/ "c" appears, just like magic. Of > course, you should not have the caps lock on when you do this - if you > accidentally got a capital "C", then delete it (using the "Backspace" > key), turn the caps lock off by pressing the "Caps Lock" key, and try again. > > > If that's 'auto-completion' then I'd get my money back if I was you! > > > > I see what you mean. Pressing a single "C" key is /far/ harder and more > time consuming than pressing the "Tab" key a dozen times and rolling > through all the possibilities, reading each one, and remembering to stop > at the right point. I believe it is that confusion about upper case "C" > and lower case "c" that is the key to all this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <587fa2f8.432656@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #102108 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 17/01/17 22:22, BartC wrote: > > You mean, putting the "c" at the end of "hello." to end up with > > "hello.c"? And minding you type "c" and not "C" as that will probably > > not work. > > Sometimes this is like talking to a particularly dim and stubborn child. No, it's like talking to a troll. Because it _is_ talking to a troll. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 09:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd36efbf-3f1b-42a0-8646-86c66144fe9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #102134 |
W dniu środa, 18 stycznia 2017 18:17:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Bos napisał: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > > On 17/01/17 22:22, BartC wrote: > > > > You mean, putting the "c" at the end of "hello." to end up with > > > "hello.c"? And minding you type "c" and not "C" as that will probably > > > not work. > > > > Sometimes this is like talking to a particularly dim and stubborn child. > > No, it's like talking to a troll. > > Because it _is_ talking to a troll. > you see that becouse your weak mental skills disallows you to unterstand bart - you do not understand what he mean so you will call him with words 'troll' 'child' and so on; keith thompson level of primitivism, nothing to be proud of
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 21:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87k29sysi9.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #102134 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 17/01/17 22:22, BartC wrote: > >> > You mean, putting the "c" at the end of "hello." to end up with >> > "hello.c"? And minding you type "c" and not "C" as that will probably >> > not work. >> >> Sometimes this is like talking to a particularly dim and stubborn child. > > No, it's like talking to a troll. > > Because it _is_ talking to a troll. Yup. Surely "how could I explain the difference between CC and cc on the phone?" is incontrovertible evidence. No one is that dim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 22:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5opvc$ior$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #102154 |
On 18/01/2017 21:20, Gareth Owen wrote: > raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>> On 17/01/17 22:22, BartC wrote: >> >>>> You mean, putting the "c" at the end of "hello." to end up with >>>> "hello.c"? And minding you type "c" and not "C" as that will probably >>>> not work. >>> >>> Sometimes this is like talking to a particularly dim and stubborn child. >> >> No, it's like talking to a troll. >> >> Because it _is_ talking to a troll. > > Yup. Surely "how could I explain the difference between CC and cc on the > phone?" is incontrovertible evidence. No one is that dim. And if someone is dim, so what? Are they fair game for abuse? Or condescension? For anyone else who's wondering what this is about (not Owen or Bos as those two ***** only come on here to have a go at people), here's the quote in question: David Brown: > The standard Linux shell requires you to press > the "C" key for this auto-completion in the context of what to press at a shell prompt in order to complete the filename "hello" or "hello." to get to "hello.c" Does no-one else see the contradiction? No? In that case can someone please explain to me what the "auto" means in "auto-completion" if you have to complete it yourself. The "CC" comment is to do with my observation that case-sensitive text is more difficult to express as speech, as well as "CC" being an extraordinary choice for the name of a compiler when there is already a compiler called cc. (One wonders what cC and Cc are used for, or perhaps such absurdity can only go so far.) I think this is really what it's about. People don't like awkward questions about their pet OS especially when valid points are made. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-19 00:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o5otov$1h4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #102161 |
On 18/01/17 23:26, BartC wrote: > On 18/01/2017 21:20, Gareth Owen wrote: >> raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: >> >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> >>>> On 17/01/17 22:22, BartC wrote: >>> >>>>> You mean, putting the "c" at the end of "hello." to end up with >>>>> "hello.c"? And minding you type "c" and not "C" as that will probably >>>>> not work. >>>> >>>> Sometimes this is like talking to a particularly dim and stubborn >>>> child. >>> >>> No, it's like talking to a troll. >>> >>> Because it _is_ talking to a troll. >> >> Yup. Surely "how could I explain the difference between CC and cc on the >> phone?" is incontrovertible evidence. No one is that dim. > > And if someone is dim, so what? Are they fair game for abuse? Or > condescension? > > For anyone else who's wondering what this is about (not Owen or Bos as > those two ***** only come on here to have a go at people), here's the > quote in question: > > David Brown: >> The standard Linux shell requires you to press >> the "C" key for this auto-completion > > in the context of what to press at a shell prompt in order to complete > the filename "hello" or "hello." to get to "hello.c" > > Does no-one else see the contradiction? No? In that case can someone > please explain to me what the "auto" means in "auto-completion" if you > have to complete it yourself. No, I expect everyone else understands that the "auto" bit is when the system fills in the common part - "hello." - automatically, and only requires manual intervention - pressing "C" - when there is a choice that the computer cannot make automatically. It really is not hard. > > The "CC" comment is to do with my observation that case-sensitive text > is more difficult to express as speech, as well as "CC" being an > extraordinary choice for the name of a compiler when there is already a > compiler called cc. (One wonders what cC and Cc are used for, or perhaps > such absurdity can only go so far.) > > I think this is really what it's about. People don't like awkward > questions about their pet OS especially when valid points are made. > You really cannot get over this idea that people have "pet OS's", or "pet compilers", can you? You are obsessed about it. Can't you understand that someone can say a feature of an OS, or shell, or compiler, or tool, is better than the alternatives simply because that someone finds that feature better? You seem to imagine that I am "defending bash's auto-completion despite its problems and clear deficiencies compared to the simple and intuitive windows way" - all because I have some desperate need to promote everything Linux related. Can you not comprehend that I simply think the bash way is better, and certainly works better for /me/ ? I have nothing against awkward questions. I have no vested interest in selling Linux or bash. I am quite happy to talk about things that I see as not as good as they could be, or poorer than alternatives. I am quite happy to understand why someone might prefer a different system. But if you ask idiotic questions about whether you should be pressing the "C" key or the "c" key, you can expect sarcasm and mocking in return. It is either that, or I will join others in ignoring you - because there is no way to answer that kind of question seriously. Perhaps we should just call an end to this thread. If you want to talk more about tools or OS's or anything else at a later date, then that's fine - if you can accept two rules. First, keep an open mind and accept that some things mind be different or require thought, learning or research - and that does not make them bad, or "counter-intuitive". Secondly, accept that people might use or like a tool simply because they find it useful - /not/ because they have some secret motive to promote it and hide its flaws, most of which only /you/ can see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 15:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnvatcgcld.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #102163 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> Perhaps we should just call an end to this thread.
Sounds good to me.
> If you want to talk
> more about tools or OS's or anything else at a later date, then that's
> fine
If such talk is actually relevant to the C language.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 23:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5ovc0$5ue$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #102163 |
On 18/01/2017 23:31, David Brown wrote: > On 18/01/17 23:26, BartC wrote: >> David Brown: >>> The standard Linux shell requires you to press >>> the "C" key for this auto-completion > But if you ask idiotic questions about whether you should be pressing > the "C" key or the "c" key, you can expect sarcasm and mocking in > return. Sorry, but the way you put it /was/ genuinely confusing and ambiguous. The standard shell REQUIRES you to press C to make it work? WT...? What you meant is that auto-complete doesn't fully work and you have to key in the final few characters by hand. That can involve pressing C /if/ the last character happens to be "c". Do you write instruction manuals or docs? Would you mock any of your users to their face for being cretinous imbeciles if they complained about ambiguity about something in something you wrote? I'd be terrified of working with you I think. Anyway, back to C now. And I don't mean the key.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-17 11:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lny3y9ii0n.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #102043 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> And how would that help me? It's easy to type "gcc -c hello.c" to
> compile a C file and "gcc -c hello.cpp" to compile a C++ file. In what
> world is that so much more difficult than typing "cc1 -c hello" and
> "cc1plus hello" would be?
[...]
Personally, I use the "gcc" command for C source files, and the
"g++" command for C++ source files. Apparently "gcc -c hello.cpp"
works as well as "g++ -c hello.cpp", but you need to use "g++"
if you're going to (implicitly) invoke the linker, as in "g++
hello.cpp -o hello".
There's nothing wrong with using "gcc -c hello.cpp" if it works, but
I find it easier to keep things straight if I use a language-specific
command for each language.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-17 21:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o5m09t$gpe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #102068 |
On 17/01/17 20:49, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] >> And how would that help me? It's easy to type "gcc -c hello.c" to >> compile a C file and "gcc -c hello.cpp" to compile a C++ file. In what >> world is that so much more difficult than typing "cc1 -c hello" and >> "cc1plus hello" would be? > [...] > > Personally, I use the "gcc" command for C source files, and the > "g++" command for C++ source files. Apparently "gcc -c hello.cpp" > works as well as "g++ -c hello.cpp", but you need to use "g++" > if you're going to (implicitly) invoke the linker, as in "g++ > hello.cpp -o hello". There is nothing that "g++" does in linking that you don't also get with "gcc -lstdc++". Obviously if you are typing the command, it is simpler and easier to use "g++". If the command is inside a makefile and you have lots of other options anyway, it makes little difference. Of course, you might find it /clearer/ or more logical to think of using g++ for compiling C++ files, or when linking programs that include C++ (and possibly also C) files. > > There's nothing wrong with using "gcc -c hello.cpp" if it works, but > I find it easier to keep things straight if I use a language-specific > command for each language. > gcc is nothing if not flexible - use the commands that make most sense to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-17 13:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lntw8xidwk.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #102074 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> There is nothing that "g++" does in linking that you don't also get with
> "gcc -lstdc++". Obviously if you are typing the command, it is simpler
> and easier to use "g++". If the command is inside a makefile and you
> have lots of other options anyway, it makes little difference.
[...]
That appears to be true for gcc 4.8.4 on Ubuntu 14.04, but not for
gcc 6.2.0 on Ubuntu 16.10.
(No doubt someone will cite this as proof that the entire system
is poorly designed, but just by using the "g++" command I don't
have to know or care that "-lstdc++" is the option to link to the
C++ library.)
Quite possibly there's some simple workaround that would let me
use "gcc" to link C++ executables, but this is neither topical
nor important.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o5nknr$vq0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #102079 |
On 17/01/17 22:18, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] >> There is nothing that "g++" does in linking that you don't also get with >> "gcc -lstdc++". Obviously if you are typing the command, it is simpler >> and easier to use "g++". If the command is inside a makefile and you >> have lots of other options anyway, it makes little difference. > [...] > > That appears to be true for gcc 4.8.4 on Ubuntu 14.04, but not for > gcc 6.2.0 on Ubuntu 16.10. I'll happily take your word for it - my compilation and linking is almost all cross-platform and there is no need for much in the way of libraries, so I don't see such issues. My guess is that newer gcc expects more than the one extra library for C++ and linking with g++ automatically includes them. > > (No doubt someone will cite this as proof that the entire system > is poorly designed, but just by using the "g++" command I don't > have to know or care that "-lstdc++" is the option to link to the > C++ library.) > > Quite possibly there's some simple workaround that would let me > use "gcc" to link C++ executables, but this is neither topical > nor important. > Agreed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 07:51 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ee77dqF2tftU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #102033 |
On 01/18/17 12:59 AM, BartC wrote: > On 17/01/2017 08:12, David Brown wrote: >> On 17/01/17 01:29, BartC wrote: > >> The actual C compiler is "cc1", and the C++ compiler is "cc1plus". Not >> that it matters to anyone - you should use "gcc" (or g++ if you prefer) >> as the driver. > > And the actual linker is ld. Which if you try and run it separately, > doesn't work because it's driven in a very complicated manner. If you find ld complicated, try running link.exe by hand on your windows box.... -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-17 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5lsef$1d3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #102062 |
On 17/01/2017 18:51, Ian Collins wrote: > On 01/18/17 12:59 AM, BartC wrote: >> On 17/01/2017 08:12, David Brown wrote: >>> On 17/01/17 01:29, BartC wrote: >> >>> The actual C compiler is "cc1", and the C++ compiler is "cc1plus". Not >>> that it matters to anyone - you should use "gcc" (or g++ if you prefer) >>> as the driver. >> >> And the actual linker is ld. Which if you try and run it separately, >> doesn't work because it's driven in a very complicated manner. > > If you find ld complicated, try running link.exe by hand on your windows > box.... I don't have link.exe. I don't find ld that complicated, and I run it as a standalone linker when not compiling C (but I rename it to link.exe to avoid clashes, so your comment was a little confusing). What's complicated is finding out exactly how gcc drives ld. Without that magic incantation, I can't get some things to work. And I don't fancy supplying this lot without understanding what's going on; if I type 'gcc hello.c', then ld gets invoked with these 48 parameters: 0: c:\tdm\bin\ld.exe 1: -plugin 2: c:/tdm/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/5.1.0/liblto_plugin-0.dll 3: -plugin-opt=c:/tdm/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/5.1.0/lto-wrapper.exe 4: -plugin-opt=-fresolution=C:\Users\DESKTO~1\AppData\Local\Temp\ccnC7g4i.res 5: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lmingw32 6: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lgcc 7: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lmoldname 8: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lmingwex 9: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lmsvcrt 10: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lpthread 11: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-ladvapi32 12: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lshell32 13: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-luser32 14: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lkernel32 15: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lmingw32 16: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lgcc 17: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lmoldname 18: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lmingwex 19: -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lmsvcrt 20: -m 21: i386pep 22: --exclude-libs=libpthread.a 23: -Bdynamic 24: c:/tdm/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/5.1.0/../../../../x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/../lib/crt2.o 25: c:/tdm/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/5.1.0/crtbegin.o 26: -Lc:/tdm/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/5.1.0 27: -Lc:/tdm/bin/../lib/gcc 28: -Lc:/tdm/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/5.1.0/../../../../x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/../lib 29: -Lc:/tdm/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/5.1.0/../../../../lib 30: -Lc:/tdm/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/5.1.0/../../../../x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib 31: -Lc:/tdm/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/5.1.0/../../.. 32: C:\Users\DESKTO~1\AppData\Local\Temp\ccVcERe8.o 33: -lmingw32 34: -lgcc 35: -lmoldname 36: -lmingwex 37: -lmsvcrt 38: -lpthread 39: -ladvapi32 40: -lshell32 41: -luser32 42: -lkernel32 43: -lmingw32 44: -lgcc 45: -lmoldname 46: -lmingwex 47: -lmsvcrt 48: c:/tdm/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/5.1.0/crtend.o Pay attention to parameter #4, which looks like a temporary file created to supply some special information (and which of course deletes itself afterwards!). This partly why I'm keen for my own tools to eliminate dependencies like this. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-17 21:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o5m0fi$ht0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #102069 |
On 17/01/17 20:50, BartC wrote: > On 17/01/2017 18:51, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 01/18/17 12:59 AM, BartC wrote: >>> On 17/01/2017 08:12, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 17/01/17 01:29, BartC wrote: >>> >>>> The actual C compiler is "cc1", and the C++ compiler is "cc1plus". Not >>>> that it matters to anyone - you should use "gcc" (or g++ if you prefer) >>>> as the driver. >>> >>> And the actual linker is ld. Which if you try and run it separately, >>> doesn't work because it's driven in a very complicated manner. >> >> If you find ld complicated, try running link.exe by hand on your windows >> box.... > > I don't have link.exe. > > I don't find ld that complicated, and I run it as a standalone linker > when not compiling C (but I rename it to link.exe to avoid clashes, so > your comment was a little confusing). > > What's complicated is finding out exactly how gcc drives ld. Without > that magic incantation, I can't get some things to work. And I don't > fancy supplying this lot without understanding what's going on; if I > type 'gcc hello.c', then ld gets invoked with these 48 parameters: > Then I think it makes sense to use "gcc" for linking. On small embedded systems, the parameters needed for "ld" are typically a lot fewer and clearer, so it's not bad there. But even then I generally use "gcc" for linking - why make things harder? You can also put most or all of these parameters into a linker command file and pass that as a parameter (to "ld" or "gcc" as you wish).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 17:51 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ee8ahnF2vaqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #102076 |
On 01/18/17 09:59 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 17/01/17 20:50, BartC wrote: >> >> What's complicated is finding out exactly how gcc drives ld. Without >> that magic incantation, I can't get some things to work. And I don't >> fancy supplying this lot without understanding what's going on; if I >> type 'gcc hello.c', then ld gets invoked with these 48 parameters: >> > > Then I think it makes sense to use "gcc" for linking. > > On small embedded systems, the parameters needed for "ld" are typically > a lot fewer and clearer, so it's not bad there. But even then I > generally use "gcc" for linking - why make things harder? Where's the fun in that? -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 12:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <587f5c09.4368937@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #102062 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 01/18/17 12:59 AM, BartC wrote: > > On 17/01/2017 08:12, David Brown wrote: > >> On 17/01/17 01:29, BartC wrote: > > > >> The actual C compiler is "cc1", and the C++ compiler is "cc1plus". Not > >> that it matters to anyone - you should use "gcc" (or g++ if you prefer) > >> as the driver. > > > > And the actual linker is ld. Which if you try and run it separately, > > doesn't work because it's driven in a very complicated manner. > > If you find ld complicated, try running link.exe by hand on your windows > box.... I have. What's the problem? Not Linuxy enough? Too many prompts you have to, shock horror, *read*? Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-19 07:52 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ee9rr1Fnke7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #102116 |
On 01/19/17 01:15 AM, Richard Bos wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 01/18/17 12:59 AM, BartC wrote: >>> On 17/01/2017 08:12, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 17/01/17 01:29, BartC wrote: >>> >>>> The actual C compiler is "cc1", and the C++ compiler is "cc1plus". Not >>>> that it matters to anyone - you should use "gcc" (or g++ if you prefer) >>>> as the driver. >>> >>> And the actual linker is ld. Which if you try and run it separately, >>> doesn't work because it's driven in a very complicated manner. >> >> If you find ld complicated, try running link.exe by hand on your windows >> box.... > > I have. > > What's the problem? Not Linuxy enough? Too many prompts you have to, > shock horror, *read*? There isn't a problem, the complexity is similar which was my point. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <587f5ae2.4073968@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #101819 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] > > Now, in all the years I've been frequenting this group, I don't recall > > the name 'CC' ever coming up. Compared with 'gcc' which might be almost > > every other post. > > > > Nor have I have ever comes across the file extension '.cc'. > [...] > > And now you have. Is learning new things painful for you? Yes, because it means one less thing to troll you with. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web