Linux-Development-Sys Digest #773, Volume #7 Sat, 15 Apr 00 17:13:13 EDT
Contents:
Re: Color faxing s/w? (Diego Berge)
MS caught breaking web sites (wisdom)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites ("Robert Moir")
MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU! (Charlie Ebert)
16-Bit C compiler that can deal properly with bit fields (David Nowak)
A beginner's question (Jason Rizer)
Simple but confusing C code query... (Michael Hopkins)
Re: Simple but confusing C code query... (Johan Kullstam)
Re: To core or not to core - You tell me (Erik Max Francis)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Simple but confusing C code query... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego Berge)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Color faxing s/w?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:58:09 GMT
On 13 Apr 2000 14:58:18 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter
Anvin) wrote:
>Followup to: <upJI4.59641$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>By author: "Spehro Pefhany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In newsgroup: comp.os.linux.development.system
><
>> The Japanese have had color faxes for some time, and I'm vaguely aware of
>> an extension to the fax standard that allows Postscript faxes to be sent
>> in the native format, provided both ends agree on the feasibility after
>> the connection is made, but I think mailing the file as an attachment is
>> the best way these days (or just put it on an ftp site for the recipient
>> to pull it down from).
>>
>
>PDF via email is definitely the way to go for high-quality portable
>image sending. It's trivial to turn this into a "fax machine" by
>having a specific email address to send to.
>
>(You don't want high-resolution images sent via modem, which is what
>fax machines are: scanner, modem, printer.)
Not at 9600 (or even 14400) bauds, anyway :) -- are those color
faxes regular copper-wire phone line stuff, or more like ISDN, DSL,
etc.?
Regards,
Diego Berge.
------------------------------
From: wisdom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:30:52 -0400
WELL WELL WELL!
For all of you butt-bumping suckbuddies of Mr. Bill who have
been assuring us that there are no network "backdoors" in
Windows you, along with your evil master, are fucked now.
Microsoft just acknowledged (see attached CBS article) that they
installed secret code in Windows to sabotage webservers
by allowing "backdoor" unsecured logins for hackers. The
code was apparently intended to be used against Netscape
based on embedded comments in the file.
Microsoft is blaming this on "rogue" programmers, whom
they are promising to fire.(Now tell me the one about the easter bunny)
The timing of this admission couldn't be better... Just when Judge
Jackson
is considering whether Microsoft deserves to be broken up, it turns out
that
their market dominance was aided by deliberate sabotage...Hmmmm
Let's all hear a rousing chorus of "Breaking up is hard to do".
Microsoft Acknowledges Hidden File
Secret Message Was Aimed At Rival
Manager Will Fire Those Responsible
No Reports Of Hackers So Far
NEW YORK
(CBS) Microsoft Corp.
engineers
included a secret password in
Internet software that could
be
used to gain illegal access
to
hundreds of thousands of Web
sites, The Wall Street
Journal
reported Friday.
The rogue computer code was
discovered in a
three-year-old
piece of software by two security experts. Contained
within the code
is a derisive comment aimed at a Microsoft rival:
"Netscape
engineers are weenies!"
Steve Lipner, who manages Microsoft's
security-response center,
described such a backdoor password as "absolutely
against our
policy" and a firing offense for the as-yet
unidentified employees.
There have been no reports of site access through
the code, but the
affected software is believed to be used by many Web
sites.
The file, called "dvwssr.dll" is installed on
Microsoft's Internet-server
software with Frontpage 98 extensions. By using the
so-called
backdoor, a hacker may be able to gain access to key
Web site
management files, which could in turn provide a road
map to such
things as customer credit card numbers, the Journal
reported.
One of the security experts, Russ Cooper, says the
risk is bigger
with commercial Internet hosting providers, which
maintain
thousands of Web sites for a slew of organizations.
It was apparently programmed by a Microsoft employee
when
Netscape and Microsoft were at war over their
version of an internet
browser, according to the Journal. Eventually
American Online Inc.
acquired Netscape.
The Journal reported that an engineer from Netscape
called the
hidden file a "classic engineer rivalry."
Microsoft urged customers to delete the file and
planned to warn
customers with an e-mail bulletin and an advisory
published on its
corporate Web site.
Copyright 2000 CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights
Reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,
or
redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to
this report.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 18:17:18 +0100
"wisdom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> WELL WELL WELL!
>
> For all of you butt-bumping suckbuddies of Mr. Bill who have
> been assuring us that there are no network "backdoors" in
> Windows you, along with your evil master, are fucked now.
>
> Microsoft just acknowledged (see attached CBS article) that they
> installed secret code in Windows to sabotage webservers
> by allowing "backdoor" unsecured logins for hackers. The
> code was apparently intended to be used against Netscape
> based on embedded comments in the file.
Hey Fudster, seen this?
taken from NT bugtraq
Latest reports say that there is
NO VULNERABILITY IN DVWSSR.DLL
Yup, that's right, different again from what I said earlier, and even more
different than what I said yesterday to WSJ.
Please accept that I have followed the story published elsewhere and tried
to keep you abreast of everything I knew. Also appreciate that the amount of
time given to verify and research the claims made by others has been
extremely short. I've had probably 30 interviews today by orgs pressing for
information on the story as the feeding frenzy occurs after the first one
goes to press (WSJ in this case).
MS have had people working on this thing like madmen, trying to verify the
claims and investigate all of the possible pieces of code that may be
affected. As that research progressed, different observations were made and
so the story came out in various stages (with varying levels of
"correctness"). Had they been given a reasonable amount of time to respond,
nobody would have been in a tizzy about anything (i.e. the press would not
have cared to run this story anywhere).
Decide for yourself whether we were better served by (more) immediate
disclosure or not. I've stood where I stand for a reason, despite the
loathing of others for my stance...
In the end, it turns out that unless you actually have permissions for the
file you are requesting, you'll get an error message when you follow the
procedures outlined by RFP in his RFP2K02 advisory.
That said, understand that sites that allow connections by Front Page may
very well provide you with source asp if you request it. BUT THAT WILL
HAPPEN with or without the .dll. Without proper and full permissions applied
across virtual servers on a given box, site leakage or manipulation by
others will always be possible in myriad ways.
>From what I've heard/seen/been told, permissions on the test servers must
have either been non-existent, incorrectly applied, or permissioned the user
across multiple virtual sites (i.e. incorrectly applied).
I had someone claim that they could get into an FP98 site using
"Netscapeengineersareweenies!" as a userID and no password...making them
think it was a backdoor userID. Fact is they could get into the same sites
using "TomDickandHarry" as a userID too. If the permissions aren't set
correctly, anything is possible.
This info may change again before its finalized. It may well be that there
is some way to use this .dll in a way that's not intended...it just doesn't
appear to be this one. On a box where multiple sites have not been
individually permissions, or permissions are lax or non-existent...anyone
permissioned to execute the .dll in the first place would have the ability
to simply open the other sites and manipulate them directly (i.e. no need to
do this junk with the dvwssr.dll)
Finally, to my point out the string not being a password. Elias Levy of
SecurityFocus.com and Mark Edwards of NTSecurity.net have both correctly
pointed out that using the term password to apply to that string is not
beyond the realm of understanding. The client component mtd2lv.dll and the
server component dvwssr.dll both need to know this value, and use it
correctly, for communications to work. If you try and talk directly to
dvwssr.dll and don't obfuscate your communication with the correct "key", it
won't understand you. Of course if you don't already have permissions,
knowing this value gets you nothing...hence my observation that its not a
password. Whatever it is, it appears to be meaningless junk text used as
data.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:54:57 GMT
MICROSOFT IS THRU!
MICROSOFT IS THRU!
MICROSOFT IS THRU!
MICROSOFT IS THRU!
MICROSOFT IS THRU!
MICROSOFT IS THRU!
TELL EVERYONE!
Microsoft has been forced to admit they created secret back doors to every
computer
system they sold out the DOOR!
This MEANS to the STUPID and IGNORANT that the U.S. Government has ACCESS
to every MS equipped machine in the world and therefore they
CAN NOT BE TRUSTED ANYMORE!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: David Nowak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 16-Bit C compiler that can deal properly with bit fields
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 19:36:44 +0100
Hi,
I am searching a 16-Bit C compiler for Linux that can deal properly with bit
fieds. Indeed, with bcc (from linux-86) everything is padded to char, int or
long: it can store values wider than the specified field width!
That's surely not convenient for system programming.
By the way, does BCC and Linux-86 have a web page ? What is their original
site ?
--
David
------------------------------
From: Jason Rizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: A beginner's question
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 19:48:24 GMT
Hello. I am a C/C++ programmer and I have recently installed Linux. I
have no experience with Linux. I installed Redhat 6.0 from the Info
Magic Developer's Resource CD. My question is this: Do I have a C/C++
Compiler installed? If I don't where on the internet can I find one?
Any suggestions on which to choose? I'm not, at least initially,
interested in doing any GUI development. Finally, the machine on which
I'm running Linux is not connected to the internet, though I have a
machine running NT which is. Will I have a problem downloading files
onto the NT machine and transferring them to the Unix machine via floppy
or a zip disk. Thanks in advance for any help I get.
Jason
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:54:45 +0100
From: Michael Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
uk.comp.os.linux,uklinux.help.newbies,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Simple but confusing C code query...
Hi all,
Please help me with this extremely simple problem. =
I am coming straight from a clever IDE on the Mac (though I programmed
on UNIX many years ago) & I=92m finding the command line for compilation
& linking pretty frustrating at the moment. I realise that it offers a
great deal of flexibility & power, but I don=92t have a hope in hell of
porting a large ANSI C console project from the Mac until I understand
the following behaviour. =
I=92m trying to get the following code to compile on Mandrake 7.0 distro
with gcc:
#include <math.h>
int main( void )
{
double a =3D 150.0;
=
printf(=93Ok\n=94); /* line A */
printf("Log( 150 ) =3D %6.3f\n", log( a ) ); /* line B */
=
return 1;
}
I=92m using the following at the command line:
gcc prog.c -o prog
Some questions:
Why does the linker tell me =93undefined reference to log=94? It does the=
same with any of the functions that are in math.h (which is where it
should be & is found OK, as is mathcalls.h which math.h refers to
internally). Where is the object code for the math library routines?
Why does it compile & work fine if I comment out line B? Shouldn=92t I
need to #include <stdio.h> for line A to compile?
Am I doing something very dim or are these bugs/features? Are there
any other things I should be aware of before I undertake the Mac ->
Linux port? Can I use a command line option make the linker ignore
functions in the included files that aren=92t used in the program
(=91smart link=92)? Does gcc deal with external variables in included
files in a standard way?
Thanks in advance for any help,
Mike
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
uk.comp.os.linux,uklinux.help.newbies,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Simple but confusing C code query...
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:24:13 GMT
Michael Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Please help me with this extremely simple problem.
>
> I am coming straight from a clever IDE on the Mac (though I programmed
> on UNIX many years ago) & I’m finding the command line for compilation
> & linking pretty frustrating at the moment. I realise that it offers a
> great deal of flexibility & power, but I don’t have a hope in hell of
> porting a large ANSI C console project from the Mac until I understand
> the following behaviour.
>
> I’m trying to get the following code to compile on Mandrake 7.0 distro
> with gcc:
>
>
> #include <math.h>
>
> int main( void )
> {
> double a = 150.0;
>
> printf(“Ok\n”); /* line A */
> printf("Log( 150 ) = %6.3f\n", log( a ) ); /* line B */
>
> return 1;
> }
>
>
> I’m using the following at the command line:
>
> gcc prog.c -o prog
>
>
> Some questions:
>
> Why does the linker tell me “undefined reference to log”? It does the
> same with any of the functions that are in math.h (which is where it
> should be & is found OK, as is mathcalls.h which math.h refers to
> internally). Where is the object code for the math library
> routines?
you need to link with the math library libm.
$ gcc prog.c -o prog -lm
(yes this is stupid and libm should have been rolled into libc about
20 years ago but here we are.)
> Why does it compile & work fine if I comment out line B? Shouldn’t I
> need to #include <stdio.h> for line A to compile?
no. unless otherwise instructed, C assumes things return int and will
pass everything according to its type. you are lucky that you are
ignoring printf's return value. it's up the the called function to
interprete its arguments. it is a good idea to #include <stdio.h>
though.
> Am I doing something very dim or are these bugs/features? Are there
> any other things I should be aware of before I undertake the Mac ->
> Linux port? Can I use a command line option make the linker ignore
> functions in the included files that aren’t used in the program
> (‘smart link’)?
put these sometimes needed functions in a library. when you link
against a library, only modules which are used are actually linked
in.
ar (the library making tool)
usually makes modules out of each .o file (which correspond to a
particular .c file) but i think there's some option to gcc which
breaks things into one function quanta.
> Does gcc deal with external variables in included
> files in a standard way?
yes.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.solaris,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: To core or not to core - You tell me
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:28:48 -0700
Mark McIntyre wrote:
> I find this highly amusing. I have told you that I'm talking about
> NULL. So stop trying to twist the conversation to your own topic.
I'm correcting your incorrect nitpicks. You said you wanted to play
this game.
> have you been listening to ANY of this thread? The entire debate is
> about NULL aka the null pointer constant aka 0 or (void*)0. Thats what
> the entire discussion is about.
As has been pointed out to you by myself and others, NULL does not have
a "bit pattern," and neither does a null pointer constant. Only the
null pointer itself does. Your insisting that your statements make
sense doesn't make it so.
--
Erik Max Francis | email [EMAIL PROTECTED] | icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | q3a Product
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 969.988 Ms p.L. | 260 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__
/ \ That which is resisted persists.
\__/ Camden Benares
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:59:27 GMT
Okay, let's discuss this.
Robert Moir wrote:
> "wisdom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > WELL WELL WELL!
> >
> > For all of you butt-bumping suckbuddies of Mr. Bill who have
> > been assuring us that there are no network "backdoors" in
> > Windows you, along with your evil master, are fucked now.
> >
> > Microsoft just acknowledged (see attached CBS article) that they
> > installed secret code in Windows to sabotage webservers
> > by allowing "backdoor" unsecured logins for hackers. The
> > code was apparently intended to be used against Netscape
> > based on embedded comments in the file.
>
> Hey Fudster, seen this?
> taken from NT bugtraq
>
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! He's not a FUDSTER for reporting the truth.
>
> Latest reports say that there is
> NO VULNERABILITY IN DVWSSR.DLL
If there's no GD vulnerabiltiy in the .Dll mentioned, then why are
they telling people to DELETE IT! What are you F'ing saying here!
>
> Yup, that's right, different again from what I said earlier, and even more
> different than what I said yesterday to WSJ.
I don't consider WHITE WASH a GOOD ARGUMENT!
>
> Please accept that I have followed the story published elsewhere and tried
> to keep you abreast of everything I knew. Also appreciate that the amount of
> time given to verify and research the claims made by others has been
> extremely short. I've had probably 30 interviews today by orgs pressing for
> information on the story as the feeding frenzy occurs after the first one
> goes to press (WSJ in this case).
> MS have had people working on this thing like madmen, trying to verify the
> claims and investigate all of the possible pieces of code that may be
> affected. As that research progressed, different observations were made and
> so the story came out in various stages (with varying levels of
> "correctness"). Had they been given a reasonable amount of time to respond,
> nobody would have been in a tizzy about anything (i.e. the press would not
> have cared to run this story anywhere).
> Decide for yourself whether we were better served by (more) immediate
> disclosure or not. I've stood where I stand for a reason, despite the
> loathing of others for my stance...
Oh for christ sakes! If Microsoft and their policies were less crooked then
we would have never had this MESS to begin with.
Your WHITE WASH of the story isn't helping ANYBODY HERE!
>
> In the end, it turns out that unless you actually have permissions for the
> file you are requesting, you'll get an error message when you follow the
> procedures outlined by RFP in his RFP2K02 advisory.
OH crap! Why are they asking people to delete it!
>
> That said, understand that sites that allow connections by Front Page may
> very well provide you with source asp if you request it. BUT THAT WILL
> HAPPEN with or without the .dll. Without proper and full permissions applied
> across virtual servers on a given box, site leakage or manipulation by
> others will always be possible in myriad ways.
I'm not going to say it!
>
> From what I've heard/seen/been told, permissions on the test servers must
> have either been non-existent, incorrectly applied, or permissioned the user
> across multiple virtual sites (i.e. incorrectly applied).
> I had someone claim that they could get into an FP98 site using
> "Netscapeengineersareweenies!" as a userID and no password...making them
> think it was a backdoor userID. Fact is they could get into the same sites
> using "TomDickandHarry" as a userID too. If the permissions aren't set
> correctly, anything is possible.
Yes, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!
I'm beginning to believe Microsoft WILL STUP AT NOTHING!
>
> This info may change again before its finalized. It may well be that there
> is some way to use this .dll in a way that's not intended...it just doesn't
> appear to be this one. On a box where multiple sites have not been
> individually permissions, or permissions are lax or non-existent...anyone
> permissioned to execute the .dll in the first place would have the ability
> to simply open the other sites and manipulate them directly (i.e. no need to
> do this junk with the dvwssr.dll)
> Finally, to my point out the string not being a password. Elias Levy of
> SecurityFocus.com and Mark Edwards of NTSecurity.net have both correctly
> pointed out that using the term password to apply to that string is not
> beyond the realm of understanding. The client component mtd2lv.dll and the
> server component dvwssr.dll both need to know this value, and use it
> correctly, for communications to work. If you try and talk directly to
> dvwssr.dll and don't obfuscate your communication with the correct "key", it
> won't understand you. Of course if you don't already have permissions,
> knowing this value gets you nothing...hence my observation that its not a
> password. Whatever it is, it appears to be meaningless junk text used as
> data.
This day marks an end to trust between most of the nations internet ready
companies and the company known as Microsoft.
You WOULD NEVER have had THIS KIND OF PROBLEM if you USED OPEN SOURCE CODE!
THIS EXAMPLE is but one of MANY WE COULD SITE HERE TODAY which functionally
BURIED the proprietary closed source concept, EXPECIALLY FROM MICROSOFT!
I think you can EXPLAIN until your head falls off.
By this time NEXT WEEK, nobody in corporate America will trust MICROSOFT with
ANYTHING!
I'm SHOCKED. Do you hear me! SHOCKED! OUTRAGED!
LIES, LIES and MORE LIES! I'm SICKENED!
ENOUGH COVERUP ALREADY!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
uk.comp.os.linux,uklinux.help.newbies,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Simple but confusing C code query...
Date: 15 Apr 2000 20:59:39 GMT
In uk.comp.os.linux Michael Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
: Please help me with this extremely simple problem.
: I am coming straight from a clever IDE on the Mac (though I programmed
: on UNIX many years ago) & I?m finding the command line for compilation
: & linking pretty frustrating at the moment. I realise that it offers a
: great deal of flexibility & power, but I don?t have a hope in hell of
: porting a large ANSI C console project from the Mac until I understand
: the following behaviour.
: I?m trying to get the following code to compile on Mandrake 7.0 distro
: with gcc:
: #include <math.h>
: int main( void )
: {
: double a = 150.0;
:
: printf(?Ok\n?); /* line A */
: printf("Log( 150 ) = %6.3f\n", log( a ) ); /* line B */
:
: return 1;
: }
: I?m using the following at the command line:
: gcc prog.c -o prog
Yes, that's correct, but if you are using any math.h functions, you
must include -lm (to link in the math library!) This used to be a
little buggy on old gcc compilers (best to put at the end of the
line)- think it's OK now though.
You also have a little error... your printf OK line should have "
where you have ?'s
: Some questions:
: Why does the linker tell me ?undefined reference to log??
because the math stuff is in a separate linkable library, hence the -lm
I hope everything makes sense once you have this.
: Are there
: any other things I should be aware of before I undertake the Mac ->
: Linux port?
Not really, but a couple of hints: if you want fast code, use the
optimise command (with various levels)... -O2 is usually pretty good.
It's also handy to use a makefile if you have lots of separate files
which you are coding in... watch out though, as makefiles aren't
clever about dependencies, so sometimes you end up making the whole
shebang when you've altered an .h file (so aren't all that clever
after all)
Make files are a bit fun to understand ig you've never encountered
them.. the best thiung is to try to get a simple example, so you can
see the basic behaviour.
here's a simple make file which uses harp_coila.c modified_main.c
modified_cb.c can.c rtck.c to compile harp_coila executable
you should be able to see how the c flags and libraries are mentioned,
as well as the make options (make and make clean).. hope this helps.
Makefile-----------------------snip---------------
CANDIR=/usr/local/can4linux/Can
LIBS =-L/usr/X11R6/lib -L$(CANDIR)/lib -lCan -lforms -lX11 -lm
CFLAGS = -I$(CANDIR)/include -O2 -Wall
OBJS = harp_coila.o modified_main.o modified_cb.o can.o rtck.o
harp_coila: $(OBJS)
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o harp_coila $(OBJS) $(LIBS)
clean:
-rm harp_coila *.o
===============================================
: Can I use a command line option make the linker ignore
: functions in the included files that aren?t used in the program
: (?smart link?)?
: Can I use a command line option make the linker ignore
: functions in the included files that aren?t used in the program
: (?smart link?)?
Don't know that one... gcc is pretty good at keeping code
small.. your programme compiles to 12K on my machine, which doesn't
seem excessive to me. man gcc gives you the options, but I could not
immediately find what you were after.
: Does gcc deal with external variables in included
: files in a standard way?
In the same was as any other c compiler.. you can define variables as
external, which you can then reference again in other headers (of
course you must not call them external a 2nd time)
.. see any good c book (K&R etc..)
Hope this helps, Hugh Gibson.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
