|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:29:46 GMT, Chadwick Stone© wrote:
>X-No-Archive: YES
>why? [fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz] has entered into testimony
>r2t6021e8r2t2ol2e1p2qiq85b4fmlgr85@xxxxxxx
>
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:53:09 +0000, Whiskers wrote:
>>
>> reposted , removed the no archive this time : -) seems to be an issue
>> in a delay selecting / deleting since using VNC. Oh well.
>>
>>> On 2006-02-27, Steve <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:21:02 +0000, Whiskers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2006-02-27, ice berg <akasokan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Need detailed explanation about the flow(source code to
>>>>>> executable code conversion in c language).please reply asap
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards
>>>>>> ice berg
>>>>>
>>>>> Source --> compiler --> binary
<snip>
>> Here is an A+ then , well the little bit more I remember.
>>
>> Source - PreProcessor - Assembler - (Libraries) - Object Code -
>> Linker - Binary
>>
>> Me
>
>Before these bloatware guis became all the rage and developers were more
>concerned with memory, there was an EXE2BIN distribution that came with
>MSDOS which would generate a .COM file from the executable provided it
Used that a a lot and somewhere still around is my MASM disks and books
, Turbo pascal 3 (IIRC) for DOS.
>met some special requirements such as being able to be resident within a
>single segment of memory, etc. I do recall that there were ways around
>that particular limitation by using multiple near calls and some segment
>register trickery.
>
>Ah, the days of real coding when you actually used a keyboard to type
>instructions rather than a mouse to drag and drop cutesy little controls
>and check off options.
Too right it was better, taught you how to use 64K to the most, with
tight coding and no bloat.
Not only did one have to know the CPU but it's quirks as well. At one
point I was doing stuff on Z80, 8080, 6502, 6809 and 68000. Miss all the
fun.
Me
|
|