On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, William N Luoma wrote:
jefferson:/home/luoma/map$ g++ -omap map.cpp
/var/tmp/ccwiw3cN.o: In function `std::_Rb_treestd::string,
std::pairstd::string const, std::vectorstd::string,
std::allocatorstd::string , std::_Select1ststd::pairstd::string const,
nice trick that:
Script started on Sat Oct 26 05:59:49 2002
jefferson:/home/luoma/map$ g++ -v -o map map.cpp
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.0.4/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.0.4/configure --with-gnu-ld --with-gnu-as
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.0.4
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, William N Luoma wrote:
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.0.4/collect2 -V -Y
P,/usr/ccs/lib:/usr/lib -Qy -o map
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.0.4/crt1.o
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.0.4/crti.o
/usr/ccs/lib/values-Xa.o
I checked the /usr/ccs/lib directory. no relevant libs.
Ran `nm -Cp libstdc++.a` and found the symbols for
stl-inst.o, the object file for instantiation file
stl-inst.cc. No references to my missing symbol.
I think the lib just wasn't built right.
Thanks for your time.
Bill
I suppose this might relate to how Eric H? was complaining about
C++ being hard to compile.
I use a solaris 2.8 box at a virginia.edu address, which was recently
hacked. It took the SAs about a week to regen everything and when they had
finished, I couldn't compile g++ programs that referenced
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, William N Luoma wrote:
I suppose this might relate to how Eric H? was complaining about
C++ being hard to compile.
If so, then that's hardly a C++ language problem. You can't blame a
language because some SA didn't install the tools correctly.
I did some grepping around and
Jimen Ching,
thank you very much for your comments.
Here is the -v from gcc and more.B
Script started on Sat Oct 26 04:20:06 2002
jefferson:/home/luoma$ g++ -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.0.4/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.0.4/configure --with-gnu-ld
At 11:12 PM 10/22/2002 -1000, Ray Strode wrote:
I think also that people tend to love the language they used seriously
first.
Yeah. Maybe it was my good fortune to learn on languages so flakey that no
one could love them - first program in raw machine code (not even an
assembler on that
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Dustin Cross wrote:
BeOS was written in C++ and it was one of the best operating systems I have
ever used. It was fast and efficient.
Do you know if they use exceptions, STL, and RTTI? These aren't the main
features of C++, but I can't imagine an OS using these things. The
Aloha,
This got me interested, so I started doing some reading. BeOS is based on
a microkernel, written in C, everything else in the OS is done via servers
which were written in C++. The servers are:
Application Server - provides the functionality for creating apps and their
associated windows
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Dustin Cross wrote:
This got me interested, so I started doing some reading. BeOS is based on
a microkernel, written in C, everything else in the OS is done via servers
which were written in C++.
This makes more sense. The Be people can call them servers. But they're
just
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 22:15, Jimen Ching wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Dustin Cross wrote:
This got me interested, so I started doing some reading. BeOS is based on
a microkernel, written in C, everything else in the OS is done via servers
which were written in C++.
This makes more sense.
I assume you mean for applications? This seems to be the consensus. I
don't know why people still use C for large applications, like GNOME.
C++ would be a much better choice.
C offers more portability and better abi compatibility than C++. C++
compilers
tend to be more buggy than C (which
What I really meant by this is that C tends to compile just fine with
gcc and some kernel libraries. C++ always requires odd libraries like
libstdc++, which change so often I can never get a C++ library version
that properly matches the version that was required for the program.
Redhat had an
At 06:42 PM 9/30/2002 -0700, Eric Hattemer wrote:
A lot of other universities have taken Java and objects as the greatest
new thing ever. They preach these, and consider C to be old and
obsolete.
This probably has a lot to do with the problem - java is used almost
exclusively outside of the
I didn't mean to imply that any univeristy thinks C is obsolete. I was
just exagerating to point out that some universities get people hooked on
procedures and C, and others get people hooked on objects and C++/Java.
Sometimes I do feel like C is obsolete compared to C++, though. C++ from
what
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Charles Lockhart wrote:
From reading his email to the class it looks like the problems (excuses?)
people had were that they weren't good enough C programmers, Linux isn't
documented well enough, and os stuff is hard. All of these answers kind
of blow me away.
If the goal was
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I may get flamed for saying this, but here goes anyway: Most people
study computer science because professional degrees (Law/Medicine)
usually require 7+ years of schooling.
Ok, let me flame you for this. ;-}
As long as people treat computer science
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Warren Togami wrote:
IMHO, it isn't that Linux is too hard... they just put almost zero effort
into giving resources to the students in getting them acclimated.
Have you looked at the Linux kernel sources? I have. There are a few
projects out there that are very hard to
Ah, I did misunderstand one thing in his email: he is going to allow the
class to diverge into two paths, and allow people to either do the Linux
based projects, or switch to the os simlator. Unfortunately, I would
guess that if a majority of people wuss out, this'll be the last
semester they
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: [luau] ics412: operating systems
From
reading his email to the class it looks like the problems (excuses?)
people had were that they weren't good enough C programmers, Linux isn't
documented well enough, and os stuff is hard
Uhm, I tend to think that comp-sci is a professional degree, as is
engineering, etc. Versus majors like, history, or communications. But
then they might not see it that way either.
But I understand and agree with where you're coming from. Unfortunately
I have run into a lot of people who
Alright, nothing specific to cite here, but I have some comments. I'm
at USC, and here we use a program called nachos for our OS class. I
haven't taken the class, but I can tell you its the hardest class in CS
if not the entire university. But everyone knows this, its a grad
requirement, and
- Original Message -
From: W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: [luau] ics412: operating systems
Warren: If a class at UH ever requires me to read Shared Source code, I
will sue the
University and perhaps transfer
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Ronnie T Livingston wrote:
I have known people who can sit down without any reference material and
code in multiple languages, this just boggles my mind. I love to program
and spend much of my free time doing so but I doubt I could compete with
these type of programmers in
Don't know how many people know this, but this semesters ics412, operating
systems class, is (maybe was) based on Linux (the main reason I'm taking
the class). I thought it was a pretty good idea, an introduction to
operating systems using a real operating system. Apparently the class
(and I
This is a senior level computer science course, and none
of the C programming for the projects is very difficult. Shouldn't
comp-sci grads be able to program?
I'll agree with the os stuff is hard argument, but jeez, that's why we
have a class on it.
So, I guess I'm wondering if I'm
- Original Message -
From: Charles Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: luau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: [luau] ics412: operating systems
From
reading his email to the class it looks like the problems (excuses?)
people had were that they weren't good
28 matches
Mail list logo
