Richard Bos wrote:
> rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> Stop replying to yourself.

Nothing in R.H. c.l.c posting history I know about (from years back),
would suggest such a behavior.

Methinks, Richard Bos need to put forward an apology.

--
Tor <torust [at] online [dot] no>

"Technical skill is mastery of complexity, while creativity is mastery
of simplicity"

santosh wrote:
> Alan Curry wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
>> There's no reason a serious competitor to the GNU compiler couldn't
>> feed its output to the GNU assembler.
>
> I rather feel that this option would entail more work for jacob than
> implementing object code generation directly.
>
>> (Not that I think a non-free x86-only compiler is a serious
>> competitor)
>
> It could conceivably be a competitor on the x86. Right now though,
> the main competitors to gcc on the x86 are MS's and Intel's
> compilers.

Note that Jacob was NOT writing a Linux compiler; he was writing an
X86 compiler usable only on X86's running Linux.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard Bos wrote:
> rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
>
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> Stop replying to yourself.

I'm curious. Would you care to identify the procedure you used to
identify rosewater as a sock puppet? Does it involve any evidence that
could survive even mildly skeptical inquiry? Or is it based entirely
upon percieved similarities between the points of view expressed?

santosh <santosh.k83@gmail.com> writes:

> Alan Curry wrote:
<big snip>
>> Since this apparently wooshed over everyone's head, the point was:
>> someone is offering a compiler for Linux, complaining about the
>> license of libbfd which he used to write object files, but if he'd
>> made any effort to adapt to the local way of doing things (instead of
>> just dropping his big MS-style bomb into foreign territory) he
>> wouldn't have been writing object files at all and libbfd would not
>> have been involved!
>
> Presumably you are saying he should have grokked lcc-win32 to produce
> assembler source code? If so, he still has the problem of writing in
> ELF code generation into his assembler.
>
> Probably the easiest fix for him is to require each user to install
> libbfd separately; and in most Linuxes it comes preinstalled.

This is a misconception. lcc (the compiler driver) is linked again
libbfd, so it is a "derived work". (It is also linked again libc and
libm, but these are LGPL, I think.)

The GPL does not prevent anyone from distributing GPL source (or
binaries provide the source is made available). Heck, half the point
of the GPL is to _encourage_ distribution. What is prevents, is
building on the GPL work without making your code GPL too.

--
Ben.

On 23 okt, 00:26, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]
> However use of a separate assembler is very handy when the
> (basically) same compiler is to be used on various architectures.

I don't agree to that. Assembly language is tied too tightly to a
particular processor architecture to be useful as intermediate
language in a compiler that targets multiple architectures.
You need a slightly higher-level language, where things like processor
registers are not an important consideration. To my knowledge, this is
the kind of language that GCC uses between its (language dependent)
front-ends and its (platform dependent) back-ends.

> It also leaves an immediately recognizable (and thus debuggable)
> intermediate statement of the program.

True, but I would rather have that the code-generator can produce
either the binary op-codes for the compiler, or the equivalent
assembly mnemonics for assembly-output.

Bart v Ingen Schenau

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> santosh <santosh.k83@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Alan Curry wrote:
> <big snip>
>>> Since this apparently wooshed over everyone's head, the point was:
>>> someone is offering a compiler for Linux, complaining about the
>>> license of libbfd which he used to write object files, but if he'd
>>> made any effort to adapt to the local way of doing things (instead
>>> of just dropping his big MS-style bomb into foreign territory) he
>>> wouldn't have been writing object files at all and libbfd would not
>>> have been involved!
>>
>> Presumably you are saying he should have grokked lcc-win32 to produce
>> assembler source code? If so, he still has the problem of writing in
>> ELF code generation into his assembler.
>>
>> Probably the easiest fix for him is to require each user to install
>> libbfd separately; and in most Linuxes it comes preinstalled.
>
> This is a misconception. lcc (the compiler driver) is linked again
> libbfd, so it is a "derived work". (It is also linked again libc and
> libm, but these are LGPL, I think.)

Is this true even if the "linking" takes place at runtime with a shared
object of libbfd?

<snip>

In article <ffivt1$iuj$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
>
>You speak of "unix tradition", but not even -one- Linux version
>has been Unix certified. How do the compilers on actual Unix systems
>operate?

Tradition is the stuff that goes back a long way, not the stuff that
currently has the UNIX(r) label on it. Those who are still using separate
processes for compiling (from C to assembly) and assembling (to create object
files) are in fact more traditional on this point. This has nothing to do
with your precious corporate certifications.

--
Alan Curry
pacman@world.std.com

santosh <santosh.k83@gmail.com> writes:
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> santosh <santosh.k83@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Probably the easiest fix for him is to require each user to install
>>> libbfd separately; and in most Linuxes it comes preinstalled.
>>
>> This is a misconception. lcc (the compiler driver) is linked again
>> libbfd, so it is a "derived work". (It is also linked again libc and
>> libm, but these are LGPL, I think.)
>
> Is this true even if the "linking" takes place at runtime with a shared
> object of libbfd?

I think so, but IANAL. It would seen strange to me if dynamic vs. static
linking altered the notion of what constitutes a derived work.

It may be time to ask in a group that knows.

--
Ben.

In article <ffi3iv$cbc$2@news.xmission.com>, Kenny McCormack
<gazelle@xmission.xmission.com> writes
>In article <lo-dnRKYt-TLE4Ha4p2dnAA@bt.com>,
>Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>[On the few occasions in this reply where I have used the word "you", it
>>refers to Richard Bos. Where I mean a more generic "you", I have used the
>>appalling neologism "yougeneric".]
>>
>>Richard Bos said:
>>
>>> rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>> Stop replying to yourself.
>>
>>I have not done so. I have no need to hide behind sock puppets. You have
>>made the mistake of believing one of the group trolls.
>
>(rest of stupid denial - clipped)
>
>Gee, a denial. Wow. Are we surprised?

From what I know of Richard Heathfield he can be an obtuse pedantic
pain in the arse (but not as bad as CBF :-) but I believe him to be
honest and true to what he believes. He is consistent and stands by what
he says no mater how popular or unpopular.

I don't think it would even occur to him to use a fake id on here for
himself. If he wants to say something he does so under his own name.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <1193093003.999343.221060@i38g2000prf.googlegroups .com>,
jameskuyper@verizon.net writes
>Richard Bos wrote:
>> rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
>>
>> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> Stop replying to yourself.
>
>I'm curious. Would you care to identify the procedure you used to
>identify rosewater as a sock puppet? Does it involve any evidence that
>could survive even mildly skeptical inquiry? Or is it based entirely
>upon percieved similarities between the points of view expressed?
>

Now it can be told..... Richard Heathfield is a sock puppet for Rose
Water

Rose not Richard is the real person.... Yes for years Rose has been
leading a double life..... the C guru and author we think we know and a
burger flipper at the all night Internet cafe in Detroit to make money
to feed 23 brothers and sisters.

The easy way to stop this silliness is for Rose to identify her/him
self. So Rose either publicly or two a couple of the regulars if you
would prefer not to tell everyone. Who will be able to vouch for the
fact that Rose and Richard are two people

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris Hills wrote:
> The easy way to stop this silliness is for Rose to identify her/him
> self.

Mark McIntyre

jacob navia wrote:

> Chris Hills wrote:
>> The easy way to stop this silliness is for Rose to identify her/him
>> self.
>
> Mark McIntyre

Are you jesting or are you serious? If the latter what's your reason for
this allegation?

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:14:36 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

>Mark McIntyre said:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:51:14 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
>> Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>So - what of the attackee?
>>
>> You should have stopped here. The bit below felt uncomfortably like a
>> self-justification, and was unnecessary as we all know you are very
>> unlikely to stoop to sockpuppetry.
>
>Tell that to Richard Bos.

We're all entitled to one brainfart every so often... Even people
called Richard ! :-)

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:50:01 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
<santosh.k83@gmail.com> wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:
>
>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>> The easy way to stop this silliness is for Rose to identify her/him
>>> self.
>>
>> Mark McIntyre
>
>Are you jesting or are you serious? If the latter what's your reason for
>this allegation?

I'd be interested to hear an explanation for this falsehood too. I
doubt we'll get one tho.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

jacob navia <jacob@nospam.org> writes:
> Chris Hills wrote:
>> The easy way to stop this silliness is for Rose to identify her/him
>> self.
>
> Mark McIntyre

jacob, in a thread where accusations of lying and sockpuppetry are
being thrown around, adding to the flames is not ful. If it's a
serious accusation, it's unfounded (or, if it isn't, please provide
evidence). If it's a joke, it's not funny.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
> In article <ffi3iv$cbc$2@news.xmission.com>, Kenny McCormack
> <gazelle@xmission.xmission.com> writes
[the usual crud]

> From what I know of Richard Heathfield he can be an obtuse pedantic
> pain in the arse (but not as bad as CBF :-) but I believe him to be
> honest and true to what he believes. He is consistent and stands by
> what he says no mater how popular or unpopular.
>
> I don't think it would even occur to him to use a fake id on here for
> himself. If he wants to say something he does so under his own name.

I suggest that KM's accusations are not worthy of refutation. Please
don't feed the troll.

If you flame him, you're giving him *exactly* what he wants. If you
ignore him (use a killfile if you feel the need), he has no power.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On 25 Oct, 23:14, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
> > Chris Hills wrote:
> >> The easy way to stop this silliness is for Rose to identify her/him
> >> self.
>
> > Mark McIntyre
>
> jacob, in a thread where accusations of lying and sockpuppetry are
> being thrown around, adding to the flames is not ful. If it's a
> serious accusation, it's unfounded (or, if it isn't, please provide
> evidence). If it's a joke, it's not funny.

I'm afraid I found this very funny! (Mark - I'm pretty sure no
offense was intended.)

You're all getting your knickers in a twist for nothing. It's plainly
obvious RH would not use a 'sock puupet'. it's plainly obvious those
suggesting it are just fucking with you. Move along.

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:50:01 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
> <santosh.k83@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>>> The easy way to stop this silliness is for Rose to identify her/him
>>>> self.
>>> Mark McIntyre
>> Are you jesting or are you serious? If the latter what's your reason for
>> this allegation?
>
> I'd be interested to hear an explanation for this falsehood too. I
> doubt we'll get one tho.

When an anonymous stalker accused my daughter of being a thief,
you were the only one defending that post.

When the anonymous stalker started pleading a final solution for
the "jacob problem", you were the only one to support that post.

Your tone, insults etc fit well with what the anonymous posts
say.

You won. I do not post here anymore see?

jacob navia wrote:

> Mark McIntyre wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:50:01 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
>> <santosh.k83@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jacob navia wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>>>> The easy way to stop this silliness is for Rose to identify
>>>>> her/him self.
>>>> Mark McIntyre
>>> Are you jesting or are you serious? If the latter what's your reason
>>> for this allegation?
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear an explanation for this falsehood too. I
>> doubt we'll get one tho.
>
> When an anonymous stalker accused my daughter of being a thief,
> you were the only one defending that post.
>
> When the anonymous stalker started pleading a final solution for
> the "jacob problem", you were the only one to support that post.
>
> Your tone, insults etc fit well with what the anonymous posts
> say.
>
> You won. I do not post here anymore see?

This is exactly the type of baseless allegation that we don't want. And
don't get put off by anonymous cowards. Trolls are powerless when you
don't respond to them.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:49:15 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
<santosh.k83@gmail.com> wrote:

(nothing I've retained, but JN is in my killfile to avoid long
debatesd with him)

>jacob navia wrote:

>> When an anonymous stalker accused my daughter of being a thief,
>> you were the only one defending that post.

Thats a complete lie. I commented on the gratuitous insult you handed
out to Old Wolf, not on the criminal nature or otherwise of your
daughter. This can be trivially proven by reading the thread in google
groups.

>> When the anonymous stalker started pleading a final solution for
>> the "jacob problem", you were the only one to support that post.

Thats false too. Firstly there was no anonymous stalker, secondly
many people supported the idea of totally ignoring you - but curiously
I wasn't one of them (see post 90). I've since changed my mind by the
way.

>> Your tone, insults etc fit well with what the anonymous posts
>> say.

Consider looking in the mirror.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:00:22 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Doug
<DougTheScot@googlemail.com> wrote:

>I'm afraid I found this very funny! (Mark - I'm pretty sure no
>offense was intended.)

I'm not. I have a view concerning JN's posts which I don't propose to
propagate, but which would lead me to suspect that comments such as
that are deadly serious.

>You're all getting your knickers in a twist for nothing. It's plainly
>obvious RH would not use a 'sock puupet'. it's plainly obvious those
>suggesting it are just fucking with you. Move along.

Agreed. But then again, its a fairly serious allegation....
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> writes:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:00:22 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Doug
> <DougTheScot@googlemail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>You're all getting your knickers in a twist for nothing. It's plainly
>>obvious RH would not use a 'sock puupet'. it's plainly obvious those
>>suggesting it are just fucking with you. Move along.
>
> Agreed. But then again, its a fairly serious allegation....

Indeed it is -- and Richard Bos *still* owes Richard Heathfield an
apology for accusing him of sockpuppetry.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"