Re: make

Daniel Lehnberg (danielle@london.docs.uu.se)
Sun, 16 Jun 1996 02:44:17 +0200 (MET DST)


On Sat, 15 Jun 1996, James M. Cassidy wrote:

> Well for your information I did read the release notes. I did recompile
> make and I STILL have the problem with the new excutable. Not too mention
> the little probablem their talking about should cause any problems with the
> old executables. When it comes to executing binaries your computer doesn't
> care what you use for variables name it removes them anyways in compilation
> unelss you tell it to include them for debugging.

Isn't it a nice make patch at the end of the release-note?
And variables names are removed but not there relative location in a
struct and if you think you're useing the right field (since two shared
the same value) of a struct , but you managed to use the wrong one , if
it's corected in a later edition of the shared-lib you get another file
length (ie. to big/small filename) you get the strange result that you
had in make.
It's all rather basic programming knowledge IMHO (at least in this
maillist :)

*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| We the willing , leaded by thre ignorant , makeing the impossible |
| for the unthankfull. We have done so much under such a long time with |
| so small resoucres ,that we now have qualified ourself to do anything |
| with help of nothing |
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Daniel "Que" Lehnberg , danielle@prag.docs.uu.se , cel93dlg@sauron.mdh.se |
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*