|
|
> vipps...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > jacob navia <ja...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > <big article about linkers, assembly & others>
> > What's the actual intent behind these posts?
> > Bring revolution to clc & usenet? Inform poor souls
> > that figured out how to browse clc but not other
> > groups?
Ostensibly.
> > Bring more noise & trolls?
No, he sees that as a welcome side effect. Support from
the trolls bolster his hubris.
> > Annoy the "no stack in C" people?
> > You could get a blog if you like to write articles..
You can't spam from a personal blog. And they don't have
the readership that clc has.
Observe that he doesn't spam comp.compilers.lcc with the
same posts. Much easier to dump rubbish in someone else's
back yard.
jacob navia <ja...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> file a.c
> int a[12];
>
> file b.c
> int a[256];
> int main(void){return0;}
>
> This is a common error,
I wouldn't say common, but in any case, rather than
discussing the techiques of constructing C programs
that mitigate this error, you crap on exclusively
about how specific linkers work (or don't work).
> that provokes no warnings.
No diagnostic is required, which makes it a QoI issue.
> I wanted to discuss this state of affairs.
No, you wanted and did discus specific linker
implementation details.
I see no mention of 6.2.2, let alone 6.9p5 which
actually deals with the case mentioned. Not
surprising though, since you don't believe
comp.lang.c should be about the C language.
> Read the article before you say something about it.
I did. It is off topic. Well suited to any of the
hundreds of other (high noise) forums where similar
posts are made.
--
Peter
|
|