Re: gcc 2.95 and Standard C

[Adam Tauno Williams <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>It may be adding dll's/symbols on the fly for you.  Which is nice, till
>>it gets 'em wrong.
>Well, it's static linked. I say this because 2K source files on Windows
>become 70K programs, whereas on Linux they are 5-6K (before debug symbol
>stripping). But the same problem.

A staticly linked Windows program?  Never heard of that.  You've got to remember
that Windows programs contain things like icons, etc...  It would be nice if
they linked statically, then we wouldn't have DLL hell.  Who needs libraries,
just static link EVERYTHING!

>>You're correct.  I was told once that the man pages for functions are
>>not meant as full documentation, but simply to help jog the memory about 
>>paramater lists etc...  I'd get a copy of the gcc user's manual and the
>>glibc reference.  Be prepared, as it fills two three-inch three ring
>>binders.
>>And it becomes intuative after several wrist slashings.
>gcc for Dummies, Sylvia Plath (ed.).

Nah, I don't think dummies (even the smarter dummies) can use compilers or
linkers.  More like "gcc for those who don't want to endanger the enviroment by
printing the real documentation", Raplh Nader (ed).

Systems and Network Administrator
Morrison Industries
1825 Monroe Ave NW.
Grand Rapids, MI. 49505