Windows 10

I repeat. Bye.

Let me correct my post: Lasse, will you /please/ get a /real/ newsreader, and a /real/ newserver? And John, will you /please/ learn to use your newsreader?

Learn to /snip/ - especially after google groupies mess up their posts.

(I'm not going to go on about this - the guilty parties know who they are, they know how their laziness annoys people and detracts from their posts, and it's up to them to decide if they want to continue with these particular anti-social idiosyncrasies. It is only because their posts are often worth reading that I am bothering at all.)

I have that on one machine, when running Windows 7. The same system has no problem with Linux, so it is not a hardware issue.

What tools are they using? There are lots of tools available for the ARM, but most of them use gdb at the base and Eclipse as a front-end. You have full source-level debugging, and can single-step or breakpoint as much as you like.

There are always some limitations due to the hardware, however - if the software in question is running from flash, you will have a limited number of breakpoints determined by the particular ARM core you are using. (On the 68332, you couldn't set /any/ breakpoints when running from flash, IIRC. Usually I ran my 68332 code from ram while debugging.)

Breakpoints and single-stepping are of limited use with optimised code, or when running more complex systems with lots of threads or interrupts.

Usually Python leads to small and easy code. But it is possible to make a horror out of any language.

This is called "dynamic typing". It has its advantages and its disadvantages. I work mainly with C (in embedded systems), but I also use a lot of Python on PC's and servers. They are very different languages, and have very different uses.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 09:24:55 +0100, Tom Gardner Gave us:

English much, spotlight boy?

My computer has these cool things called "scroll bars" that let me zip down the the bottom of a post. You should buy some.

I'm not the one Impersonating A Netcop. Isn't that illegal?

I am talking about system wide libs, DLL files.

A windows app starts and it opens the lib "LoadLib" of said and returns a HANDLE to work with. with this handle, the initiation process of the windows app will then use the api "GetProAdress" with the "TextNameOfTheFunction" that is suppose to be in the lib, it returns the address pointer of where that function is with in the DLL and thus the app can then store that in the function pointer, where the app will then call this when needed.

What this does is if the DLL is updated, address pointers may change and index tables in the DLL also may change order. The windows app will have no problem with this since it's going to read in every function's pointer it needs from each Loaded LIB it loads at start up..

My question is, are their system wide API libs that work this way with linux? I would hate to think Linux apps didn't have a way to locate the proper function pointer at start up with in a common api lib..

I suppose they could also have a fixed index table that stores the address pointers, that would mean an include file of some sort for the compiler to properly index into the table per call, but still, that could lead to a problem.

Seeing that linux is used in many embedded uC systems I thought maybe someone here may know..

Jamie

Are we talking about offset static addresses or a index table entry point?

Jamie

Ok, what did you mean by "Class-A domain" and how does that relate to "9.x.x.x"

Jr.:

e:

dner

-Lasse

Ah, that reminds me of my favorite Dell story. They had a new consumer economy line, and the two least expensive models were advertised as:

Dell XXX, Y GHz CPU, Z GB memory : basic configuration designed to run OS

Dell XXX, Y++ GHz CPU, Z++ GB memory : upgraded configuration designed to run OS and applications.

Yes, they really were selling a configuration that according to them would just run the OS. Notepad! Wohoo!

Please see RFC 1918 for more information.

?-)

I came across too many machines like that years ago, where some wally had downgraded aka 'upgraded' the OS. If the machine can only just cope with the OS, at the risk of stating the obvious its the wrong OS for the hardware.

NT

Nah, it's much larger than that. This began well before Obama.

Two books:

(ignore the flamebait title of this one )

or this:

There hasn't been any "liberal" economics since LBJ or Nixon. Reagan was prepared to trade deficit for employment and did so. Reagan knew a good synthesis when he saw one.

If all you do is spew the word "liberal" and stop you won't get very far. And, SFAIK, liberal simply means "the individual is the primary entity." IOW, We are The King ( Locke more or less textually substituted "The People" in concepts that referred to "The King". )

"Conservative" in any coherent meaning - as in having been used by Edmund Burke - don't do a French Revolution - is a continuation of this.

And I think the whole argument is decidedly beside the point - the problem is, as Milton Friedman observed, monetary. The monetarists claim "it's the wrong model" and "it's an artifact of measurement" so it's harder to argue with them on that basis than the usual false-alternative Left/Right wing approaches.

In other words, it's just a *bug*. All the villain-narrative crap is just in the way. How is that not nerdy enough?

The principal vector for Movement Conservatism has been the burning wreckage of radio. Because it's cheap. But they're decidedly incoherent and pretty much depend on the willing suspension of disbelief surrounding logical fallacy.

A thinly drawn stick figure from a pretty impressive Russian social- science-fiction writer. I've gotten better use from Heinlein myself.

Well before Obama, yes, but it's the same recipe for disaster. It's the same "economics".

Nonsense.

"Liberal" has two completely different, and indeed opposite, definitions. You know damned well which one I was using. Substitute "lefty", if you can't think that far.

Please don't be so inane. Slowmanism doesn't suit you.

Absurd.

Oh, good grief!

An example entry point would be "fopen". It's a name; the tools abstract the address for you.

I'm sure there's a book for that, too.

I am going to use the definition that is functional, given the choice between that and some ... talk radio version.

There is a largish mildly crazed pseudo-Leftist contingent out there but they descend into self-parody nearly immediately. It'd be cruel to even comment on them.

FWIW, Obama talks like them but really isn't one. Pelosi is just a shill for the Real Estate lobby.

So this is the way people who actually understand these things refer to them.

I don't hold anything against the Vast Right Wing Konspiracy, I just don't want to participate.

Nope, just "is". If you'll see various interviews with Limbaugh himself, he'll say as much - mainly on Shatner's "Raw Nerve".

Radio was failing as an industry and he invented the talk radio persona he inhabits to stay on it.

He absolutely loves the medium as much as life itself, and innovated what he does very well. It just does nothing for me as entertainment product. It's fun for a while to play "spot the fallacy" but it repeats quickly.

Rand's interesting, but her conceit as a philosopher was kinda raw.

Most people who sling mud at her are dead wrong, but it's still all a bit much. I appreciate her taking on Kant but at what cost? Even of it's all flawless it didn't travel. I'd rather read David Friedman.

Granted, very few professional philosophers are worth much. About all I can use these days is Popper and then only in constrained circumstances.

You can use whatever definition you want to gin up but words mean things. The common usage generally prevails, unless you're just trying to show how "smart" you are. As is such, I have better things to do.