Re: /usr/bin/CC

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Tom Stiller, Apr 1, 2011.

  1. Tom Stiller

    Tom Stiller Guest

    In article
    <-september.org>,
    China Blue Meanies <> wrote:

    > Is /usr/bin/CC documented somewhere?


    I don't know what "CC" is but "cc" is. depending on what you have
    installed, the "C" compiler.

    Try 'man cc'.

    --
    Tom Stiller

    PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
    Tom Stiller, Apr 1, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tom Stiller

    Tim Prince Guest

    On 4/1/2011 7:47 AM, China Blue Meanies wrote:
    > In article<>,
    > Tom Stiller<> wrote:
    >
    >> In article
    >> <-september.org>,
    >> China Blue Meanies<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is /usr/bin/CC documented somewhere?

    >>
    >> I don't know what "CC" is but "cc" is. depending on what you have
    >> installed, the "C" compiler.
    >>
    >> Try 'man cc'.

    >
    > I since found it was a link to gcc. I've trying to understand a makefile that is
    > being deliberately obtuse.
    >

    One might expect a link to a C++ compiler. /usr/bin/cc -> gcc is a
    widespread setup, but no similar thing for C++ is common.

    --
    Tim Prince
    Tim Prince, Apr 1, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > In article
    > <-september.org>,
    > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Tom Stiller <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article
    > > > <-september.org>,
    > > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Is /usr/bin/CC documented somewhere?
    > > >
    > > > I don't know what "CC" is but "cc" is. depending on what you have
    > > > installed, the "C" compiler.
    > > >
    > > > Try 'man cc'.

    > >
    > > I since found it was a link to gcc. I've trying to understand a makefile
    > > that
    > > is being deliberately obtuse.

    >
    > Do you actually need to do that? I've avoided all that rubbish by using
    > xcode.


    Up until Xcode 4, the compiler supplied was gcc. When the license
    changed to GPLv3 which seriously restricted Apple and other commercial
    companies from distributing GPLv3 software, Apple changed to their own
    compiler. That's why Xcode 4 costs $4.99 from the App Store rather than
    being a free download. It's still "free" if you're a $99/year
    developer. I'm not, so I still have to pay.

    A client who writes iOS games said he lost a week's productivity
    converting from Xcode 3 to Xcode 4 and only few things were really worth
    it to him. But if he was to run and debug on iOS 4.3, it was required.

    I'm sticking with Xcode 3 and the gcc that comes with it.

    And no, Tim, a base install of MacOS doesn't have the developer tools.
    AFAIK, there's no longer a binary verision of gcc you can install.

    --
    DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
    [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
    Michael Vilain, Apr 1, 2011
    #3
  4. Tom Stiller

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article
    <-september.org>,
    China Blue Meanies <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tom Stiller <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article
    > > <-september.org>,
    > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Is /usr/bin/CC documented somewhere?

    > >
    > > I don't know what "CC" is but "cc" is. depending on what you have
    > > installed, the "C" compiler.
    > >
    > > Try 'man cc'.

    >
    > I since found it was a link to gcc. I've trying to understand a makefile that
    > is being deliberately obtuse.


    Do you actually need to do that? I've avoided all that rubbish by using
    xcode.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, Apr 1, 2011
    #4
  5. Tom Stiller

    Tom Stiller Guest

    In article
    <-september.org>,
    China Blue Meanies <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tom Stiller <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article
    > > <-september.org>,
    > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Is /usr/bin/CC documented somewhere?

    > >
    > > I don't know what "CC" is but "cc" is. depending on what you have
    > > installed, the "C" compiler.
    > >
    > > Try 'man cc'.

    >
    > I since found it was a link to gcc. I've trying to understand a
    > makefile that is being deliberately obtuse.


    Did you try 'man make'?

    --
    Tom Stiller

    PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
    Tom Stiller, Apr 1, 2011
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > > And no, Tim, a base install of MacOS doesn't have the developer tools.
    > > AFAIK, there's no longer a binary verision of gcc you can install.

    >
    > Umm, so are you saying that if I buy a Mini *today*, with 10.6.x, I
    > won't get a disk with Developer tools on it?


    No, you'll have it; it will be an optional install, not a base install.
    But it most likely will be version 3, not version 4.

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
    Michelle Steiner, Apr 1, 2011
    #6
  7. Tom Stiller

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article
    <-september.org>,
    China Blue Meanies <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tim Streater <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article
    > > <-september.org>,
    > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > Tom Stiller <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > In article
    > > > > <-september.org>,
    > > > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > Is /usr/bin/CC documented somewhere?
    > > > >
    > > > > I don't know what "CC" is but "cc" is. depending on what you have
    > > > > installed, the "C" compiler.
    > > > >
    > > > > Try 'man cc'.
    > > >
    > > > I since found it was a link to gcc. I've trying to understand a makefile
    > > > that
    > > > is being deliberately obtuse.

    > >
    > > Do you actually need to do that? I've avoided all that rubbish by using
    > > xcode.

    >
    > I have to understand fershlinger makefile before I can do that.


    Bad luck.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, Apr 1, 2011
    #7
  8. Tom Stiller

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <tph-6F902F.09560701042011@localhost>,
    Tom Harrington <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tim Streater <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article
    > > <-september.org>,
    > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > Tom Stiller <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > In article
    > > > > <-september.org>,
    > > > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > Is /usr/bin/CC documented somewhere?
    > > > >
    > > > > I don't know what "CC" is but "cc" is. depending on what you have
    > > > > installed, the "C" compiler.
    > > > >
    > > > > Try 'man cc'.
    > > >
    > > > I since found it was a link to gcc. I've trying to understand a makefile
    > > > that
    > > > is being deliberately obtuse.

    > >
    > > Do you actually need to do that? I've avoided all that rubbish by using
    > > xcode.

    >
    > If you're getting open source code from somewhere, and it has a
    > Makefile, it's usually easier to just use that file. They don't always
    > work, of course.


    I got source of a cross-assembler for the 68000 and just ignored the
    makefile that came with it. Five minutes study of most unix tools and I
    throw the computer out of the window. It was with a sinking heart that I
    approached the x-assembler and delight that by chance I discovered xcode.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, Apr 1, 2011
    #8
  9. Tom Stiller

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    Michael Vilain <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tim Streater <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article
    > > <-september.org>,
    > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > Tom Stiller <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > In article
    > > > > <-september.org>,
    > > > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > Is /usr/bin/CC documented somewhere?
    > > > >
    > > > > I don't know what "CC" is but "cc" is. depending on what you have
    > > > > installed, the "C" compiler.
    > > > >
    > > > > Try 'man cc'.
    > > >
    > > > I since found it was a link to gcc. I've trying to understand a makefile
    > > > that is being deliberately obtuse.

    > >
    > > Do you actually need to do that? I've avoided all that rubbish by using
    > > xcode.

    >
    > Up until Xcode 4, the compiler supplied was gcc. When the license
    > changed to GPLv3 which seriously restricted Apple and other commercial
    > companies from distributing GPLv3 software, Apple changed to their own
    > compiler. That's why Xcode 4 costs $4.99 from the App Store rather than
    > being a free download. It's still "free" if you're a $99/year
    > developer. I'm not, so I still have to pay.
    >
    > A client who writes iOS games said he lost a week's productivity
    > converting from Xcode 3 to Xcode 4 and only few things were really worth
    > it to him. But if he was to run and debug on iOS 4.3, it was required.
    >
    > I'm sticking with Xcode 3 and the gcc that comes with it.
    >
    > And no, Tim, a base install of MacOS doesn't have the developer tools.
    > AFAIK, there's no longer a binary verision of gcc you can install.


    Umm, so are you saying that if I buy a Mini *today*, with 10.6.x, I
    won't get a disk with Developer tools on it? That's how I happen to have
    it today, although I wouldn't find £2.99 onerous to get it from the App
    Store.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, Apr 1, 2011
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Michael Vilain <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Tim Streater <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article
    > > > <-september.org>,
    > > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > In article <>,
    > > > > Tom Stiller <> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > In article
    > > > > > <-september.org>,
    > > > > > China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > Is /usr/bin/CC documented somewhere?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I don't know what "CC" is but "cc" is. depending on what you have
    > > > > > installed, the "C" compiler.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Try 'man cc'.
    > > > >
    > > > > I since found it was a link to gcc. I've trying to understand a
    > > > > makefile
    > > > > that is being deliberately obtuse.
    > > >
    > > > Do you actually need to do that? I've avoided all that rubbish by using
    > > > xcode.

    > >
    > > Up until Xcode 4, the compiler supplied was gcc. When the license
    > > changed to GPLv3 which seriously restricted Apple and other commercial
    > > companies from distributing GPLv3 software, Apple changed to their own
    > > compiler. That's why Xcode 4 costs $4.99 from the App Store rather than
    > > being a free download. It's still "free" if you're a $99/year
    > > developer. I'm not, so I still have to pay.
    > >
    > > A client who writes iOS games said he lost a week's productivity
    > > converting from Xcode 3 to Xcode 4 and only few things were really worth
    > > it to him. But if he was to run and debug on iOS 4.3, it was required.
    > >
    > > I'm sticking with Xcode 3 and the gcc that comes with it.
    > >
    > > And no, Tim, a base install of MacOS doesn't have the developer tools.
    > > AFAIK, there's no longer a binary verision of gcc you can install.

    >
    > Umm, so are you saying that if I buy a Mini *today*, with 10.6.x, I
    > won't get a disk with Developer tools on it? That's how I happen to have
    > it today, although I wouldn't find £2.99 onerous to get it from the App
    > Store.


    The general Snow Leopard distribution has Xcode 3 on it. The version of
    SL that came with my MacPro had Xcode 3 on it as a separate install. I
    don't plan on doing iOS development and Xcode 3.2.6 with gcc 4.2.1 is
    what's on my system running 10.6.7.

    If you run Xcode 4, I think it removes gcc, but I can't be sure. AFAIK,
    you don't need Xcode 4 until you're developing for iOS 4.3.

    --
    DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
    [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
    Michael Vilain, Apr 1, 2011
    #10
  11. Tom Stiller

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 04-01-2011 15:43, Tim Streater wrote:
    > ..... Five minutes study of most unix tools and I
    > throw the computer out of the window.


    Wait just a moment while I stretch out my net, OK ?

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Amigos Falsos
    http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=108
    Wes Groleau, Apr 2, 2011
    #11
  12. On 11-04-02 12:37 AM, China Blue Meanies wrote:

    > make is just spitting out lines "CC filename.o" rather than the actually gcc
    > command. So it's tryhing to find out if CC is script or what the heck is
    > actually happenning.


    Can you post an excerpt of what it is spitting out. "CC" should be
    defined either explicitly in the Makefile or by some implicit
    rule/defintion to be something like /usr/bin/cc

    That is "CC" should be a macro within the Makefile. make shouldn't be
    calling anything called "CC".

    Cheers,

    -j



    --
    Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
    I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
    Reply-To address is valid
    Jeffrey Goldberg, Apr 2, 2011
    #12
  13. On Apr 2, 8:41 am, China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > > That is "CC" should be a macro within the Makefile. make shouldn't be
    > > calling anything called "CC".

    >
    > / make
    > CC  libavdevice/alldevices.o
    > CC  libavdevice/avdevice.o


    Yes, normally make prints which commands it runs, but no, if it's
    printing CC somefile.o, that probably isn't the command it's running.

    ..c.o:
    @echo CC $@
    @$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c $<

    This executes 'cc -O -c file.c' (as an example), but prints 'CC
    file.o'. Some Makefiles suppress the default output like this. Some of
    those that suppress the default output support something like 'make
    V=1' or 'make VERBOSE=1' to print what is actually being run,
    including the compiler command and the full compiler options.
    Harald van Dijk, Apr 2, 2011
    #13
  14. Tom Stiller

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <in6bod$bp7$>,
    Wes Groleau <> wrote:

    > On 04-01-2011 15:43, Tim Streater wrote:
    > > ..... Five minutes study of most unix tools and I
    > > throw the computer out of the window.

    >
    > Wait just a moment while I stretch out my net, OK ?


    Needs to be a pretty long net :)

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, Apr 2, 2011
    #14
  15. In article <tph-FE5643.15000102042011@localhost>,
    Tom Harrington <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Michael Vilain <> wrote:
    >
    > > If you run Xcode 4, I think it removes gcc, but I can't be sure. AFAIK,
    > > you don't need Xcode 4 until you're developing for iOS 4.3.

    >
    > Xcode 4 includes gcc, so it installs it rather than removes it.
    >
    > Also, though you've said so a couple of times in this thread, Xcode 4 is
    > in no way required for people wanting to develop for iOS 4.3. Xcode 3 is
    > still available and supports iOS 4.3 development.


    I got my info from client who's an iPhone games developer and this is
    what he told me. He couldn't develop his current games on iOS 4.3
    without installing Xcode 4 on his system.

    If you have a different data point, great. I don't use it, so I'm just
    reporting what this guy told me. If you able to develop on Xcode 3, I
    don't know what to tell you. Maybe he was using stuff on 4.3 that you
    aren't that only works on Xcode 4. He had a laundry list of stuff he
    liked better on Xcode 4 that got fixed but for the most part he was
    pissed the conversion impacted his development time.

    YMMV, obviously.

    --
    DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
    [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
    Michael Vilain, Apr 3, 2011
    #15
  16. Tom Stiller

    ImpalerCore Guest

    On Apr 2, 2:41 am, China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >  Jeffrey Goldberg <> wrote:
    >
    > > On 11-04-02 12:37 AM, China Blue Meanies wrote:

    >
    > > > make is just spitting out lines "CC filename.o" rather than the actually gcc
    > > > command. So it's tryhing to find out if CC is script or what the heckis
    > > > actually happenning.

    >
    > > Can you post an excerpt of what it is spitting out. "CC" should be
    > > defined either explicitly in the Makefile or by some implicit
    > > rule/defintion to be something like /usr/bin/cc

    >
    > > That is "CC" should be a macro within the Makefile. make shouldn't be
    > > calling anything called "CC".

    >
    > / make
    > CC  libavdevice/alldevices.o
    > CC  libavdevice/avdevice.o


    See section 10.5 of the gnu make manual. By default, there is an
    implicit rule to create a '.o' file from a '.c' file.

    %.o : %.c
    $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $< -o $@

    If the makefile defines it's own pattern rule, it can overwrite the
    default one. It looks like the pattern rule might be corrupt, but
    without seeing the makefile, I don't know for sure. It may be that
    'CC' is used instead of '$(CC)' in a '%.o : %.c' pattern rule that
    overwrites the default.

    'CC' is a make variable that is assigned the name of the C compiler,
    and 'CXX' is the name of the C++ compiler. By default, 'make' should
    set the C compiler variable 'CC' value to 'cc'. Typically, there has
    to be an assignment either in the makefile or the command-line that
    assigns CC to the exact compiler you want to use. Running make with
    'make CC=/usr/bin/gcc' will overwrite the default CC value of 'cc'.
    If the makefile was created from autoconf and friends, the makefile
    will be created from a template whose CC will be set if autotools
    discovers a working compiler (usually when running the 'configure'
    script).

    You can print text in a makefile with the $(info) command. This works
    in versions 3.81 and up. If you have an earlier version of 'make',
    you can use $(shell) and echo the text to the stderr.

    Hope it helps.
    John D.
    ImpalerCore, Apr 4, 2011
    #16
  17. Tom Stiller

    ImpalerCore Guest

    On Apr 4, 12:17 pm, China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > In article <..com>,
    >
    >
    >
    >  ImpalerCore <> wrote:
    > > On Apr 2, 2:41 am, China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > > > In article <>,
    > > >  Jeffrey Goldberg <> wrote:

    >
    > > > > On 11-04-02 12:37 AM, China Blue Meanies wrote:

    >
    > > > > > make is just spitting out lines "CC filename.o" rather than the
    > > > > > actually gcc
    > > > > > command. So it's tryhing to find out if CC is script or what the heck
    > > > > > is
    > > > > > actually happenning.

    >
    > > > > Can you post an excerpt of what it is spitting out. "CC" should be
    > > > > defined either explicitly in the Makefile or by some implicit
    > > > > rule/defintion to be something like /usr/bin/cc

    >
    > > > > That is "CC" should be a macro within the Makefile. make shouldn't be
    > > > > calling anything called "CC".

    >
    > > > / make
    > > > CC  libavdevice/alldevices.o
    > > > CC  libavdevice/avdevice.o

    >
    > > See section 10.5 of the gnu make manual.  By default, there is an
    > > implicit rule to create a '.o' file from a '.c' file.

    >
    > In this case the makefile essential echoing "CC objectfile" and hiding the
    > actual gcc command.


    So is 'make' actually compiling something and generating .o object
    files, or just printing text? You can verify whether make starts a
    'gcc' process by capturing the result of 'make -d' to a file and
    grepping for 'gcc' commands.

    If you want to see the rules that makefile uses, try using 'make -p'
    and looking for lines with '%.o : %.c'.

    On my gnumake (3.81) on MinGW, I have

    #default
    OUTPUT_OPTION = -o $@
    ....
    #default
    COMPILE.c = $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(TARGETARCH) -c

    and further down

    %.o : %.c
    # commands to execute (built-in):
    $(COMPILE.c) $(OUTPUT_OPTION) $<

    If there is a file.c in the same directory as the Makefile, and file.o
    is a target, the rule should execute the command '$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $
    (CPPFLAGS) $(TARGETARCH) -c -o file.o file.c'.

    If the Makefile changes the rule so that it doesn't generate object
    files, it should show up in the output of 'make -p'. What do you see
    for OUTPUT_OPTION, COMPILE.c, and '%.o : %.c'?

    Best regards,
    John D.
    ImpalerCore, Apr 4, 2011
    #17
  18. Tom Stiller

    Warren Oates Guest

    In article
    <>,
    ImpalerCore <> wrote:

    > So is 'make' actually compiling something and generating .o object
    > files, or just printing text?


    No, make is "guiding" the compiler(s) and the linker and so on through
    the build process in the right order. You don't need a makefile, you
    could do the whole thing by hand, and some people can even do that. Not
    me though.
    --
    If you could teach a cat to dance,
    you'd never have to leave the house.
    -- Pat Sajak
    Warren Oates, Apr 4, 2011
    #18
  19. Tom Stiller

    ImpalerCore Guest

    On Apr 4, 5:50 pm, Warren Oates <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    >  ImpalerCore <> wrote:
    > > So is 'make' actually compiling something and generating .o object
    > > files, or just printing text?

    >
    > No,  make is "guiding" the compiler(s) and the linker and so on through
    > the build process in the right order. You don't need a makefile, you
    > could do the whole thing by hand, and some people can even do that. Not
    > me though.


    I do use Make for project building. I'm trying to understand more
    explicitly what China Blue Meanies poster was referring to when he
    said

    >In this case the makefile essential echoing "CC objectfile" and hiding the
    >actual gcc command.


    From the info I've gotten, the Makefile fails to build the project,
    whether it's an executable or library. I'm trying to determine if
    he's getting object files at all when running 'make'. All that was
    said is that China sees "CC objectfile", which is not enough info to
    troubleshoot the problem. If no object files are being generated, my
    guess on the likely culprit of "CC objectfile" is an invalid '%.o :
    %.c' rule.

    Posting a 'ls' of the directory, the contents of the Makefile, and the
    result of the 'make' command would be *much* more helpful. There is
    also '' that may be a more fruitful resource than
    'comp.lang.c' to resolve this kind of problem.

    Best regards,
    John D.
    ImpalerCore, Apr 5, 2011
    #19
  20. Tom Stiller

    Seebs Guest

    On 2011-04-02, China Blue Meanies <> wrote:
    > CC libavdevice/alldevices.o


    Don't assume that this actually means it's running a command named CC.

    A common idiom in Makefiles that have really fancy command lines is to
    echo a summary rather than the actual executed command.

    So you'll end up with code looking something like:

    @echo "CC foo.o"; \
    cc --wtf-huge-option=magic-value -I/path/to/something -L/unused \
    -DFOO=BAR -DBAR=BAZ -DUNIX -DUnIX -DUNiX -DUNIx -DuNIX -DBOB_SUCKS \
    -I/path/to/workarounds/for/bob -fno-omit-frame-pointer -ffast-math \
    -mabi=theother_unsupported_abi -DFOO=3 -L/used -lfoo -lbar -lbaz \
    -lbob -lworkaround_bob

    (Only with more variables in it.)

    In short, you're asking the wrong question entirely.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
    Seebs, Apr 5, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Salerno
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,941
    Stephan Kuhagen
    Aug 10, 2006
  2. Yves Dorfsman

    #!/usr/bin/env python vs. #!/usr/bin/python

    Yves Dorfsman, May 2, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,972
    Tim Roberts
    May 10, 2008
  3. TsanChung
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,204
    TsanChung
    Sep 21, 2008
  4. anne001
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    400
  5. Gilles
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    543
    Matej Cepl
    Sep 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page