Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about linker
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:18:35 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <vjfjvc$2uo0c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me>
 <87frnbt9jn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <viaqh0$nm7q$1@dont-email.me>
 <877c8nt255.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <viasv4$nm7q$2@dont-email.me>
 <vibr1l$vvjf$1@dont-email.me> <vic73f$1205f$1@dont-email.me>
 <20241129142810.00007920@yahoo.com> <vicfra$13nl4$1@dont-email.me>
 <20241129161517.000010b8@yahoo.com> <vicque$15ium$2@dont-email.me>
 <vid110$16hte$1@dont-email.me> <vifcll$1q9rj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vifiib$1s07p$1@dont-email.me> <viht27$2hgg1$3@dont-email.me>
 <vjb8e9$1973q$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vjc9k8$1jcad$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjeqf7$25lot$1@dont-email.me> <vjesfh$25rlj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjev0k$2h167$1@dont-email.me> <vjf9b3$2si2m$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:18:37 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b09dde754c97ece6b7db369c535a6ff";
	logging-data="3104780"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qxtWsG7hP79iybEnW+n6+"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LDAq/6tJxxwZit8vVyYCO5DabFw=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
In-Reply-To: <vjf9b3$2si2m$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4506

On 12.12.2024 19:17, bart wrote:
> On 12/12/2024 15:20, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> You don't think all these words are a clear indication? - The original
>> text you see above is almost just a concatenation of all these negative
>> connoted words. It really doesn't need any own words or interpretation.
> 
> That's the point: you've extracted only the negative words to give a
> misleading picture.

If you "concatenate" the significant words and glue them together
with words to create an English sentence, and both are quite the
same, what do expect.

  This compiler is , but it produces  .
  It is  of compiling 'gawk', and it does so  that
  'make check' runs .

  However, in the past the , and the maintainer has
   with it.  He recommends using it for regular
  development, where fast compiles are , but ,
  in case 'tcc' has .

I've extracted the words that carry the quality semantics, and the
result is completely useless.

Extracting the key-attributes and key-characteristics, and the
author's valuations drawn from experiences, was done by me for the
readers convenience - or for (lowbrow?) people who are not willing
to see or identify those attributes in the text "hidden" between
all those "meaningless" glue-words.

Again, just for your argument you make up nonsensical imputations.
Why - don't - you - stop - that - ?

> How about highlighting these as well:

(I already told you that I'm *not* *interested* in advocating any
specific compiler, neither tcc nor gcc or anything else. So I will
not play your game. - Why don't you make your cat fight with folks
who are strong proponents or opponents of such tools as you are!)

I have noted that you have a strong personal affinity to that tool;
but I don't care. (If anything, I'm astonished about your fanatism.)

What I did care about was; about whom Waldek spoke when formulating
"explicit endorsement from gawk developer" - I asked "Who was that?"

Because I was surprised by his statement and curious where he got
that idea from. Since the statement I found gave a fairly different
picture. YMMV. - And since I know Arnold - the head of the GNU Awk
maintainers - from various public and private conversations, Waldek's
interpretation (and yours, of course) irritated me, to say the least.

My guess is that Waldek had no other source of information, that he
read (or mis-read, as one likes) exactly the text I quoted, but I'm
not sure. (Only he can clarify that. Not you, Bart.)

> [...]
> 
>> (I have neither a reason nor an agenda to downplay any compiler.
> 
> Yet, you clearly are downplaying it.

I am not interested in "compiler wars". - Have you some pathological
problem to accept that, or are you just too stupid to understand it?

Janis