Ilya Khayutin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For all those ones who like to flame (this is not
> intended to be a flame):
For those who don't like flame wars: apologies, but I think things
got grossly misrepresented to the list.
Ilya, please slow down. Did I flame? I just re-read my posting to be
sure, and am puzzled by your reaction... What follows is not a flame
either, at least there is no intention to flame.
> The command I wrote for compilation in the mail is
> not the thing I use at the package - it was brought as
> an example, a case, of the real procces.
I am not sure I understand it. Quoting your posting:
=> the real command for compiling some files is:
=>
=> g++ -g -O -o -lgmp *.C
It's wrong, and you got two replies pointing out the problems. As far
as I understand *now*, it is a generated statement, and that's what you
are referring to. This was quite unclear from your original posting.
> The Makefile is generated using autoconf & automake and libtool
> (well integrated into autoconf & automake).
If auto{conf,make} generated the statement you posted then in all
probability something else went wrong, because the generated statement
was wrong. I did write that I was guessing what you had in your
makefile. I can't guess what went wrong in the source given the
result.
>
> Oleg:
> Usually I do not do C coding - you can see this
> easily from the command I have posted to the list. The
> compiler name used is *_g++_* not gcc - only an insane
> man will compile C code with g++, it can be done but
> this is useless (not reason to do so)!
What are you referring to? Did I write *anything* about C? Again, I
just reread my reply to you, and all I see is an explanation why the
linking statement is wrong, and a suggestion how to write it
correctly. I assumed you had a hand-written makefile (you mentioned a
makefile, but didn't say a word about autoconf/automake), and made a
suggestion regarding the make rule. I didn't make any comment about
your coding skills, and I don't see *any* reference to C, gcc, or
compiling C code with g++ in my reply. Again, I am re-reading my
posting at this very moment to be completely sure.
> About Books:
> I like much more the book "C++ How To Program" By
> Deitel&Deitel. And I don't think you can count the
> amount of C/C++ books I have read (most of them where
> real shit - I must say, specially the ones that are
> named like: "Learn to ... in 21 Days").
I didn't make any comments about books at all (Ury did, but you make
it look like I did). C and C++ as languages are practically
irrelevant to your question.
I am terribly sorry, but it looks like you are flaming me, not
the other way around. Well, you stated up front that it wasn't your
intention, so why don't you re-read my posting again and write to
me privately if you still feel offended?
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | BLOOMBERG L.P. (BFM) | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... We work by wit, and not by witchcraft;
And wit depends on dilatory time." - W. Shakespeare.
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
