language extensions needed by linux /usr/include headers

[CBFalconer]

...

Which compiler are you using, what does the command line look
like (e.g. using gcc in special modes?). Try compiling the
"hello world" application, to check your build environment. If
that is fine, you can go for the compilation problems of your
app.

By the way, this has nothing to do with "language extensions",
more with build environment.


Different problem. Installation or application build?

Usually you have your own headers in your project directory
(source or include subdirectory, remember to inform the compiler
about your include dir: "-I../myinclude"). Once you install your
application to a system, check out the PREFIX mechanism commonly
used by Unix installation mechanisms.

By the way, your question should be placed to
news:comp.os.linux.development.apps

And NOT to comp.lang.c, where it is off-topic.

 

[Ian Collins]

I thought that the operating system would be open to any compiler, not
just a single compiler. Windows headers are the same but then, Microsoft
is accused of being the empire of evil... I thought linux would be more
open.

Intel and Sun have ported their compilers to Linux, have a look at how
they managed the task.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

And NOT to comp.lang.c, where it is off-topic.

That is important to say, because ``your article should be posted to
c.o.l.d.apps'' does /not/ make it sufficiently clear that the article should
/not/ be posted in ``comp.lang.c''.

In his infinite folly, poor Bernhard forgot to say ``/only/ to c.o.l.d apps'',
which leaves open the terrible danger that cross-posting might take place.

Also, it's a good thing you quoted the entire article just to add that, because
it underscores the important point that you're making: namely, how annoying it
is to have reams of off-topic stuff.

Maybe people won't realize just what a problem it is until you echo it back in
their faces enough times, with enough levels of > on the left hand side to
highlight all of it, you know?

So I think you scored another important point the righteous topicality side in
this war.

Ah but there are so many more battles ahead. So many long articles to be
quoted verbatim just to add ``me too''.

Don't you ever give up the good fight!

 

[CBFalconer]

That is important to say, because ``your article should be posted
to c.o.l.d.apps'' does /not/ make it sufficiently clear that the
article should /not/ be posted in ``comp.lang.c''.

So why did you override the follow-ups set, which eliminated clc?

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> Wrong. The word has a specific meaning, in the context of "clc".
> I.e., the phrase "clc reg" means a specific thing.
>
> I should know, as I am generally credited with coining the term.

So you discredit Jacob Navia who thought that they have given that name
to themselves?

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> In article <[email protected]>,

>
> And you were (and are) perfectly right to do so.

Eh? Elsewhere you wrote that *you* coined the term. So who is right?

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> Kaz Kylheku wrote: ....
>
> I thought that the operating system would be open to any compiler, not
> just a single compiler.

libc is not part of the operating system but part of the compiler environment.
If you install a system without any C compiler, you will not have libc either.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Eh? Elsewhere you wrote that *you* coined the term. So who is right?

I'm assuming that your confusion is of the "English is not my first
language" variety.

Anyway, I don't think Jacob was claiming to have coined the term, nor do
I think the "regulars" themselves coined the term. As I said, being as
I am the first person (to the best of my knowledge) to have noticed and
to have diagnosed the pathology of CLC, I am the first to have used the
term "regulars" ("regs" for short) to refer to the core bunch of net
nannies and topicality police that we have all come to know and
(cough, cough) love.

Jacob was merely claiming to use the term.

 

[Phil Carmody]

This is becoming less true. The group is becoming less and less a C
group and more and more a let's-answer-any-question-with-a-guess
group. The C content is plummeting, and as a result we are getting
far fewer contributions by people who really *know* the language.
We are in danger of losing such people. I can't remember the last
time Chris Torek posted, for example. The group's survival as a C
discussion group depends on people being willing to use it to
discuss C, and to use other groups to discuss other things (which
isn't to say they should "go away" - bright people will realise
that we're allowed to use more than one group!). This willingness
is not in evidence. As a consequence, comp.lang.c is in serious
danger of dying as a C discussion group, and becoming a place for
people to trade insults and epithets, as has happened to so many
other groups. I don't know whether Seebs is experiencing an
increase in traffic, but it wouldn't surprise me.

True, but that is supply and demand. What is there for regulars
to discuss about C nowadays? C's not a new language, there are
few discoveries left to make, so few clever and useful tricks to
trade. Historically, almost all groups with a high theoretical
technical content have existed simply to field questions from
learners - often silly and misguided ones (ambiguity not planned,
but left in after realising its potential). And the entirety of
usenet has a thick layer of idiots slathered across it, there's
no reason to think we could be exempt here, and killfiles mostly
handle that problem.

Phil

 

[Ian Collins]

True, but that is supply and demand. What is there for regulars
to discuss about C nowadays? C's not a new language, there are
few discoveries left to make, so few clever and useful tricks to
trade. Historically, almost all groups with a high theoretical
technical content have existed simply to field questions from
learners - often silly and misguided ones (ambiguity not planned,
but left in after realising its potential).

In the case of Chris Torek, I learned something from almost all of his
posts. If people like Chris are driven away, Usenet is a poorer place.

 

[Wolfgang Draxinger]

I thought that the operating system would be open to any
compiler, not just a single compiler. Windows headers are the
same but then, Microsoft is accused of being the empire of
evil... I thought linux would be more open.

There are other libc-implementations, which don't depend so
heavily on GCC. For example "diet libc"

http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/

Wolfgang

 

[Dik T. Winter]

....
> I am the first to have used the
> term "regulars" ("regs" for short) to refer to the core bunch of net
> nannies and topicality police that we have all come to know and
> (cough, cough) love.
>
> Jacob was merely claiming to use the term.

Are you missing "because is the way they call themselves"?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

term "regulars" ("regs" for short) to refer to the core bunch of net
nannies and topicality police that we have all come to know and
(cough, cough) love.

Jacob was merely claiming to use the term.

Are you missing "because is the way they call themselves"?[/QUOTE]

Like I said, I'm pretty sure that English is not your first language.
You would do well to let it be at that.

 

[Erik Trulsson]

libc is not part of the operating system but part of the compiler environment.
If you install a system without any C compiler, you will not have libc either.

Not really correct (at least not for any reasonably modern Unix-based
system.) libc normally contains all the functions from the standard C
library, like printf, malloc, memmove, etc. Since most modern Unix-like
systems use dynamic linking fairly heavily this means that almost all binaries
on such a system will need libc installed to work.
libc should very much be considered part of the OS on such systems.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

term "regulars" ("regs" for short) to refer to the core bunch of net
nannies and topicality police that we have all come to know and
(cough, cough) love.

Jacob was merely claiming to use the term.

Are you missing "because is the way they call themselves"?

Like I said, I'm pretty sure that English is not your first language.
You would do well to let it be at that.[/QUOTE]

Dik Winter's point seems perfectly correct from the native speaker's
point of view.

 

[jameskuyper]

jacob navia wrote:
....

Well, what I mean is that there is a group of people here that will
attack any post I do here for no other reason that its me. "vippstar" is
a good example of this people. I used the "regulars" because is the
way they call themselves.

As far as I can tell, most of the people who use the term "regulars"
in that way use it to describe a group that they don't consider
themselves to be part of. Can you give a counter-example?

I've used the term "regulars" in it's more conventional meaning -
"people who post here regularly", which includes all of the people you
consider to be regulars, plus all of the people like you who use
"regulars" as a pejorative term, and also a fair number of people who
don't fall into either group. When I've done so, I was using it to
describe a group that I am part of; but the only reason I've ever said
anything about it is to point out the discrepancy between the
conventional meaning of the term and the way that you guys are using
it.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Regulars call their critics trolls, not because they are trolls, but
because they are critics.

No, it's because they're trolls.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

(e-mail address removed) (Richard Harter) writes:
[...]

Regulars call their critics trolls, not because they are trolls, but
because they are critics.

No, it's because they're trolls.

Thank you for proving Mr. Harter's point.

 

[Phil Carmody]

In the case of Chris Torek, I learned something from almost all of his
posts. If people like Chris are driven away, Usenet is a poorer
place.

Certainly there are specific isolated examples. I thought Usenet
had lost Terje Mathisen for a while, a huge loss, but he's posting
again where he's most valuable. I've had several 'aha' moments just
in 2009 from reading c.l.c; so whilst it isn't what it may have
once been, it's still a useful forum.

Phil

 

[CBFalconer]

(e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) writes:
.... snip ...

Dik Winter's point seems perfectly correct from the native
speaker's point of view.

So why are you and Winter practicing troll-speak?