Re:In 100 Words Or Less Describe ABI
on
GCC 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 4
ABI == Application Binary Interface.
It's the format for putting things like function names in object files so that the linker, when fixing up function calls across object files, can match the call with the correct function.
While this isn't a problem in C (just use the function's name for christ's sake), C++ allows overloaded functions; multiple functions with the same name but different parameter lists. For the linker to match the correct call to the correct function, the parameter list needs to be munged into the function name stored in an object file.
The new way of doing it is generally less clunky and takes up less space in your object files than the old way. But is incompatible with it.:(
(Note that this only matters where GCC is being used as a native compiler to compile files that only need to be linked with each other. If compiling for a platform where gcc is not the native compiler (e.g. using GCC on, say, solaris, alongside the default compiler) you need to use the ABI defined for that platform to allow your object files to be linked with all the other object files you have that were compiled with the native compiler.)
Thing is, it's never been part of a recommended spec. the tag was introduced as part of HTML3, with the "size" attribute and I think one other, but not "face".
However, when they deprecated it in HTML4, they still added the "face" attribute!?! WTF? Why add features to something you're deprecating? If it's going to be obsolete, and you're discouraging use of it, surely adding features will just encourage people to use it. Madness.
Yeah, but you might hand them a backhoe just to see if they know which way around to hold it.
We're not asking for rocket science level algorithms here, and not that bothered if the code will compile or not - we just want to see if they at least have some semblance of a clue about what they claim they can do in their resume. In the talk afterwards we generally ask them about what they thought of their solution to the problem, where possible errors might be, where their algorithm might be improved, how they'd test their solution and stuff.
While, yes, giving them access to a dev environment and a copy of K&R would help them somewhat, it would be nice to know that they can do the basics (which is all we're asking) without having to look it up.
I went through the same thing at my interview for the company and did fine. Being out of my element didn't bother me at all. I kind of liked the challenge. Hell, it was nice to get a fucking technical interview where I could show my interviewers that I could do what they were looking for.
We were looking for just a competent C programmer for the last 6 months now. Just someone who can code in C.
We give them a pretty basic test in their interview (write a function that can do some-trivial-task, taking these inputs and giving this output; you have 30 mins, a pad of paper and a pen. If you get the order of arguments to fgets() the wrong way around, don't worry too much, we look that stuff up as well sometimes, even when we're not under interview pressure) and then talk to them about it afterwards.
The number of people we get in for a C programming job who are totally incompetent is astounding. We weren't really fussy; we _really_ needed someone. But nothing. Just a stream of totally clueless people, claiming to be C coders with 2 or 3 years commercial experience. Some of them couldn't even get a for() loop right, would read 20 bytes into an int using fgets() (why 20? Who knows. It's just a number they picked out of the air) and just have _no_ idea at all.
If you're competent, you can get a job. But most people, in my experience as someone who was looking for just semi-competency in the end, aren't.
Um yeah. OK, you've got a point. Part of the reason is to slap myself on the back and say "Yeah, I'm doing The Right Thing".
So what? As far as I'm convinced, I _am_ doing the right thing. And, yes, I realise that me not buying their content isn't really going to hurt their bottom line one single bit. It may not hurt them at all. But at least I'm not _helping_ them anymore.
And as someone who used to go to the movies a couple of times a week, every week, come on. Most of the films that you aren't actually that good. Yeah, they're an OK way to pass a couple of hours, and if you've got a monthly pass to your local multiplex then it's worth using up. But don't start pretending that say, half of the films you see are actually _really_ enjoyable. Yeah, there are some gems which I don't get to see. And, yeah, I do miss it.
But as time's gone on, I'm not really that bothered anymore. I'm back to reading books like I used to before I discovered the cinema (at about age 15), and have figured out some other ways of killing my spare time (like Diablo 2:)
Well, don't know if I've convinced myself of all this yet, but I'm trying!:)
The MPAA member companies make stuff they hope people will buy. If people don't buy DVDs because of the region encoding and CSS that makes it hard for them to exercise some of their rights, these companies will stop selling them. However, they'll want to make money off their IP somehow, and will have to make it available in a format that consumers are happy with.
Sounds like it will solve the problem to me.
Of course the real problem is that consumers are happy with this shit.
What the hell is it with calling everything "myFoobar"????
Am I the only one here who anthropomorphises programs on their computer to the extent that if a program creates something called "myFoobar", I take it to mean that it belongs to the program that created it?
If _I_ create a directory called "MyMusic", it's mine. If someone (or something) else creates it, it's _theirs_, and I don't mess with it. If a program wants to create a directory for me to put my stuff in, it should call it "yourFoobar". That makes much more sense IMO. Why do I appear to be the only one that thinks this way. I can't fscking stand "My Sidebar" on mozilla for that reason. The personal toolbar's not called "MyToolbar", the mail folder's not called "myMail". It's just "personal toolbar" and "mail". Why not "sidebar".
Of course it's _my_ toolbar, it's in _my_ profile. Of course it's _my_ music folder, it's in _my_ home (or profile, depending on system) directory.
Why not just call it "Foo" instead of "myFoo" for fscks sake?
The net and the rise of intelligent individualism marks the end of your kind.
_What_ rise of intelligent individualism?
I don't have any evidence on this either way, but it seems to me like every day that goes by, the lower the 'western' IQ seems to get, and the more content most sheeple are to be fed AOL and McDs.
(really like/agree with the post, but you can't just call Katz on not supplying any facts to back up his statements, question his motivations and then tag _that_ on the end of your post without being similarly called:-)
Thing is about the mom-n-pop butchers is that if it goes out of business because everyone in the community wants cheap and shitty over not-quite-as-cheap but damn good, then that's what the community wants. If they wanted good food at the premium it was costing them, they'd have bought it.
Obviously they don't want it at the price its selling, and prefer homogenised crap at the price that _that_'s selling.
It's not some huge conspiracy that you're all being told "this is better, you will like it." and people do. If they didn't like what they were getting for their money, they'd go back to the mom-n-pop store, and McD's et. al. wouldn't get a fat lot of business.
It's what people _want_. I may not like what they choose, but I sure as hell aren't going to ask the government to mess with any part of the chain that allows them to get exactly what they want.
A comment I read a couple months back on/. said it really well.
It's not that Windows servers are run by lazy/incompetent admins, it's that lazy/incompetent admins prefer to run Windows.
They don't have to get much of a clue to be able to walk into a company, say 'yes, I can admin an NT box' and bluff it. Bluffing on almost anything other than NT is Just Not Possible for more than a week IMO. (You might get away for a week saying you're finding your way around, if you're lucky).
The limited waiver of rights [...] prohibits participants from attacking content [...] outside the Public Challenge.
THEY aren't attacking anything outside of the Public Challenge. They've attacked what they were allowed to attack, no more, and written up what they did.
Clearly they can't be held responsible for what other people do with that information. It's the same thing as publishing a 'how to make a bomb' article. You can't be held responsible if some fuckwit makes a bomb and kills themselves and/or other people. It's the fuckwit who made the bomb.
Ditto here.
The ONLY thing that letter says is that by 'facilitating and encouraging' (which is only their opinionated speculation, especially the 'encouragement' part - the paper _definitely_ does _not_ say that the researchers encourage others to break the schemes or violate copyright) and attack BY OTHER PEOPLE (who it neglects to mention, misdirecting the reader), the researchers are in violation of a part of an agreement that limits their actions in a way they haven't broken.
The only fucking thing is that if they're sued, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong if they can't pay to defend themselves.
This way each user could set up things like "prefered size", "prefered resolution", "prefered font and size"
Uhhhh - all browsers that can display different fonts and different sizes of font already _do_ have that preference.
In Moz, it's under Edit->Preferences->Fonts
I set up my preferred default font and size and, hey presto, get to see all the web in my preferred font and size, unless some stupid shithead 'web designer', probably using frontpage, has put <font face="somecrapfont" size="8pt"> tags all over the fucking place.
(Heh - note that the 'face' attribute has _never_ been part of an HTML _recommended_ spec? The 'font' tag was introduced in HTML 3, but the only attribs defined were color and size. 'Face' does get a mention as a non-standard extension though. And then in HTML 4, the 'face' attribute suddenly appears deprecated. WTF!?! What's the point in adding an item to the spec only to immediately deprecate it? What's the point in that? Dumb bastards.)
Anyway - you want *another* prefs page so that servers can send info back to override the user's default settings?
Er, no. Send some content. Let the User Agent render it how the User want it to.
I wouldn't say that "Nothing is supposed to be taken as given" should be taken at face value itself. Why not question it.
What if we were to take things as given?
Then any statement made would be accepted at face value, and never looked at again, even if it were (intentionally or not) wrong.
What if we question everything?
Then it is possible that mistruths and mistakes will be found out and corrected, bringing us closer to the Truth. If we do not question, this can never be so. (Although note that questioning held beliefs is no guarantee of uncovering falsehoods). As the idea of science is to uncover Truth, questioning everying is good for the advancement of science.
So I would say that 'Question everything' is _not_ gospel in science, it can itself be questioned quite validly in the scientific framework is applies to and ends up (according to my reasoning) being something worth 'believing in' on its merits, not due to any 'faith' required in its accuracy.
And I'm pretty sure I didn't use any circular arguments in there either!:)
I'm always cracked up by the stickers holding CD boxes closed stating 'by breaking this seal, you agree to...'
Fine.
I break open the CD case leaving the seal intact. Even if what's writted on the seal _is_ binding (and it probably ain't, though that's probably never been tested, much like most EULAs) it's not like it's hard to circumvent.
And as I own the CD and CD case (the physical media are the one thing you _do_ "own", in every sense of the word), there's no way I can be told off for breaking the case to get at the CD.
Sigh.
Why is that these days businesses seem to be stiving to find new ways to annoy their customers?
Diaz said he believes the technology will enable "point-of-sale kiosks" where consumers would purchase movies stored on very cheap media, or be incorporated into information systems for data archiving and retrieval.
Huh? I can already buy movies stored on very cheap media - DVDs. The discs themselves aren't expensive - it's just that the MPAA (& assorted companies) charge through the nose for them.
Sorry - I've been trying to parse one sentence in here for a while now.
What do you mean by 'map structures on top of pointers'?
(Note : I'm a professional C coder and have been for 4 years. I've known the language 3 years longer than that. I just can't extract the meaning from the sentence)
Mozilla has a couple of great features that aren't mentioned enough every time this comes up, and have been in for ages.
One is to never load images from hosts other than the originating host. For example, get an HTML doc from www.foo.com, and it asks to load an image from www.bar.com (or even images.doubleclick.net) - with that pref on, Mozilla doesn't even bother attempting to load it.
The second (which I love) is accept/reject images (and cookies) on a per-site basis. Each time a page wants to load an image (or set a cookie) from a site it's not loaded an image from before, it asks you if you want to load images from that site. 'Yes' to load, 'no' to not load and 'Remember this decision' to never/always load images (or cookies) from that site in the future. So you can block images (but not text) from all your fave news sites and weblogs and places where you generally _read_ the content for faster access and more bandwidth available for all that pr0n you're downloading in the background:), and load images from sites where they're really useful (such as www.themes.org)
Get Mozilla, and you don't have to worry about your hosts file or junkbuster.
Slashdot Mirror
ABI == Application Binary Interface.
:(
:)
It's the format for putting things like function names in object files so that the linker, when fixing up function calls across object files, can match the call with the correct function.
While this isn't a problem in C (just use the function's name for christ's sake), C++ allows overloaded functions; multiple functions with the same name but different parameter lists. For the linker to match the correct call to the correct function, the parameter list needs to be munged into the function name stored in an object file.
The new way of doing it is generally less clunky and takes up less space in your object files than the old way. But is incompatible with it.
(Note that this only matters where GCC is being used as a native compiler to compile files that only need to be linked with each other. If compiling for a platform where gcc is not the native compiler (e.g. using GCC on, say, solaris, alongside the default compiler) you need to use the ABI defined for that platform to allow your object files to be linked with all the other object files you have that were compiled with the native compiler.)
Yeah, it's more than 100 words. Sue me
Thing is, it's never been part of a recommended spec. the tag was introduced as part of HTML3, with the "size" attribute and I think one other, but not "face".
However, when they deprecated it in HTML4, they still added the "face" attribute!?! WTF? Why add features to something you're deprecating? If it's going to be obsolete, and you're discouraging use of it, surely adding features will just encourage people to use it. Madness.
Can't be bothered. WTF _is_ a backhoe?
You're an idiot
Well, fuck you too.
Other stuff
Yeah, but you might hand them a backhoe just to see if they know which way around to hold it.
We're not asking for rocket science level algorithms here, and not that bothered if the code will compile or not - we just want to see if they at least have some semblance of a clue about what they claim they can do in their resume. In the talk afterwards we generally ask them about what they thought of their solution to the problem, where possible errors might be, where their algorithm might be improved, how they'd test their solution and stuff.
While, yes, giving them access to a dev environment and a copy of K&R would help them somewhat, it would be nice to know that they can do the basics (which is all we're asking) without having to look it up.
I went through the same thing at my interview for the company and did fine. Being out of my element didn't bother me at all. I kind of liked the challenge. Hell, it was nice to get a fucking technical interview where I could show my interviewers that I could do what they were looking for.
We were looking for just a competent C programmer for the last 6 months now. Just someone who can code in C.
We give them a pretty basic test in their interview (write a function that can do some-trivial-task, taking these inputs and giving this output; you have 30 mins, a pad of paper and a pen. If you get the order of arguments to fgets() the wrong way around, don't worry too much, we look that stuff up as well sometimes, even when we're not under interview pressure) and then talk to them about it afterwards.
The number of people we get in for a C programming job who are totally incompetent is astounding. We weren't really fussy; we _really_ needed someone. But nothing. Just a stream of totally clueless people, claiming to be C coders with 2 or 3 years commercial experience. Some of them couldn't even get a for() loop right, would read 20 bytes into an int using fgets() (why 20? Who knows. It's just a number they picked out of the air) and just have _no_ idea at all.
If you're competent, you can get a job. But most people, in my experience as someone who was looking for just semi-competency in the end, aren't.
*grins*
I don't play _any_ of my games while connected to the net. I've no idea what they're bloody doing.
If I want multiplayer action, I'll invite a few friends round and we'll have a nice little lan party, complete with banter, pizza and beer.
K.
Damn that's close to the mark. Ouch!
:)
:)
Um yeah. OK, you've got a point. Part of the reason is to slap myself on the back and say "Yeah, I'm doing The Right Thing".
So what? As far as I'm convinced, I _am_ doing the right thing. And, yes, I realise that me not buying their content isn't really going to hurt their bottom line one single bit. It may not hurt them at all. But at least I'm not _helping_ them anymore.
And as someone who used to go to the movies a couple of times a week, every week, come on. Most of the films that you aren't actually that good. Yeah, they're an OK way to pass a couple of hours, and if you've got a monthly pass to your local multiplex then it's worth using up. But don't start pretending that say, half of the films you see are actually _really_ enjoyable. Yeah, there are some gems which I don't get to see. And, yeah, I do miss it.
But as time's gone on, I'm not really that bothered anymore. I'm back to reading books like I used to before I discovered the cinema (at about age 15), and have figured out some other ways of killing my spare time (like Diablo 2
Well, don't know if I've convinced myself of all this yet, but I'm trying!
Why is it not a solution to the problem?
The MPAA member companies make stuff they hope people will buy. If people don't buy DVDs because of the region encoding and CSS that makes it hard for them to exercise some of their rights, these companies will stop selling them. However, they'll want to make money off their IP somehow, and will have to make it available in a format that consumers are happy with.
Sounds like it will solve the problem to me.
Of course the real problem is that consumers are happy with this shit.
Glad I didn't buy a DVD player at all actually.
Goddamn it you guys. Stop encouraging the MPAA to do this by buying their product. Stop funding this shit if you don't fucking like it.
What the hell is it with calling everything "myFoobar"????
Am I the only one here who anthropomorphises programs on their computer to the extent that if a program creates something called "myFoobar", I take it to mean that it belongs to the program that created it?
If _I_ create a directory called "MyMusic", it's mine. If someone (or something) else creates it, it's _theirs_, and I don't mess with it. If a program wants to create a directory for me to put my stuff in, it should call it "yourFoobar". That makes much more sense IMO. Why do I appear to be the only one that thinks this way. I can't fscking stand "My Sidebar" on mozilla for that reason. The personal toolbar's not called "MyToolbar", the mail folder's not called "myMail". It's just "personal toolbar" and "mail". Why not "sidebar".
Of course it's _my_ toolbar, it's in _my_ profile. Of course it's _my_ music folder, it's in _my_ home (or profile, depending on system) directory.
Why not just call it "Foo" instead of "myFoo" for fscks sake?
*sigh*
The net and the rise of intelligent individualism marks the end of your kind.
:-)
_What_ rise of intelligent individualism?
I don't have any evidence on this either way, but it seems to me like every day that goes by, the lower the 'western' IQ seems to get, and the more content most sheeple are to be fed AOL and McDs.
(really like/agree with the post, but you can't just call Katz on not supplying any facts to back up his statements, question his motivations and then tag _that_ on the end of your post without being similarly called
Hmph.
Thing is about the mom-n-pop butchers is that if it goes out of business because everyone in the community wants cheap and shitty over not-quite-as-cheap but damn good, then that's what the community wants. If they wanted good food at the premium it was costing them, they'd have bought it.
Obviously they don't want it at the price its selling, and prefer homogenised crap at the price that _that_'s selling.
It's not some huge conspiracy that you're all being told "this is better, you will like it." and people do. If they didn't like what they were getting for their money, they'd go back to the mom-n-pop store, and McD's et. al. wouldn't get a fat lot of business.
It's what people _want_. I may not like what they choose, but I sure as hell aren't going to ask the government to mess with any part of the chain that allows them to get exactly what they want.
A comment I read a couple months back on /. said it really well.
It's not that Windows servers are run by lazy/incompetent admins, it's that lazy/incompetent admins prefer to run Windows.
They don't have to get much of a clue to be able to walk into a company, say 'yes, I can admin an NT box' and bluff it. Bluffing on almost anything other than NT is Just Not Possible for more than a week IMO. (You might get away for a week saying you're finding your way around, if you're lucky).
Um...isn't 3
/` >> /files.1
3. ls -l `find ! -type d
(Why the '\*'? Find defaults to '*' anyway. Seems like a waste of keystokes to me. *shrug*.)
Hmmmm....life is complicated and there's not much you can do about it. Sounds awfully familiar in parts.
http://www.io.com/~mccoy/beginning_print.html
*grins*
I have the same problem typing the word printf^H
This is such bullshit more like.
The limited waiver of rights [...] prohibits participants from attacking content [...] outside the Public Challenge.
THEY aren't attacking anything outside of the Public Challenge. They've attacked what they were allowed to attack, no more, and written up what they did.
Clearly they can't be held responsible for what other people do with that information. It's the same thing as publishing a 'how to make a bomb' article. You can't be held responsible if some fuckwit makes a bomb and kills themselves and/or other people. It's the fuckwit who made the bomb.
Ditto here.
The ONLY thing that letter says is that by 'facilitating and encouraging' (which is only their opinionated speculation, especially the 'encouragement' part - the paper _definitely_ does _not_ say that the researchers encourage others to break the schemes or violate copyright) and attack BY OTHER PEOPLE (who it neglects to mention, misdirecting the reader), the researchers are in violation of a part of an agreement that limits their actions in a way they haven't broken.
The only fucking thing is that if they're sued, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong if they can't pay to defend themselves.
Such fucking bullshit.
This way each user could set up things like "prefered size", "prefered resolution", "prefered font and size"
Uhhhh - all browsers that can display different fonts and different sizes of font already _do_ have that preference.
In Moz, it's under Edit->Preferences->Fonts
I set up my preferred default font and size and, hey presto, get to see all the web in my preferred font and size, unless some stupid shithead 'web designer', probably using frontpage, has put <font face="somecrapfont" size="8pt"> tags all over the fucking place.
(Heh - note that the 'face' attribute has _never_ been part of an HTML _recommended_ spec? The 'font' tag was introduced in HTML 3, but the only attribs defined were color and size. 'Face' does get a mention as a non-standard extension though. And then in HTML 4, the 'face' attribute suddenly appears deprecated. WTF!?! What's the point in adding an item to the spec only to immediately deprecate it? What's the point in that? Dumb bastards.)
Anyway - you want *another* prefs page so that servers can send info back to override the user's default settings?
Er, no. Send some content. Let the User Agent render it how the User want it to.
I wouldn't say that "Nothing is supposed to be taken as given" should be taken at face value itself. Why not question it.
:)
What if we were to take things as given?
Then any statement made would be accepted at face value, and never looked at again, even if it were (intentionally or not) wrong.
What if we question everything?
Then it is possible that mistruths and mistakes will be found out and corrected, bringing us closer to the Truth. If we do not question, this can never be so. (Although note that questioning held beliefs is no guarantee of uncovering falsehoods). As the idea of science is to uncover Truth, questioning everying is good for the advancement of science.
So I would say that 'Question everything' is _not_ gospel in science, it can itself be questioned quite validly in the scientific framework is applies to and ends up (according to my reasoning) being something worth 'believing in' on its merits, not due to any 'faith' required in its accuracy.
And I'm pretty sure I didn't use any circular arguments in there either!
Hey - they're not 'foistering' this tech on you.
They're offering for sale. If you want to buy it, well, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Don't come bitching if it fucks up.
Don't want something like this? Don't buy it. Duh!
I'm always cracked up by the stickers holding CD boxes closed stating 'by breaking this seal, you agree to...'
Fine.
I break open the CD case leaving the seal intact. Even if what's writted on the seal _is_ binding (and it probably ain't, though that's probably never been tested, much like most EULAs) it's not like it's hard to circumvent.
And as I own the CD and CD case (the physical media are the one thing you _do_ "own", in every sense of the word), there's no way I can be told off for breaking the case to get at the CD.
Sigh.
Why is that these days businesses seem to be stiving to find new ways to annoy their customers?
From the article:
Diaz said he believes the technology will enable "point-of-sale kiosks" where consumers would purchase movies stored on very cheap media, or be incorporated into information systems for data archiving and retrieval.
Huh? I can already buy movies stored on very cheap media - DVDs. The discs themselves aren't expensive - it's just that the MPAA (& assorted companies) charge through the nose for them.
Sorry - I've been trying to parse one sentence in here for a while now.
What do you mean by 'map structures on top of pointers'?
(Note : I'm a professional C coder and have been for 4 years. I've known the language 3 years longer than that. I just can't extract the meaning from the sentence)
d00d - u 5h0u1d u53 '!' !n5734d 0f '1' f0r '!', 50 !7'5 n07 c0nfu53d w!7h '1'.
:)
Huh? Have you not used mozilla?
:), and load images from sites where they're really useful (such as www.themes.org)
If not, go grab a copy now.
Mozilla has a couple of great features that aren't mentioned enough every time this comes up, and have been in for ages.
One is to never load images from hosts other than the originating host. For example, get an HTML doc from www.foo.com, and it asks to load an image from www.bar.com (or even images.doubleclick.net) - with that pref on, Mozilla doesn't even bother attempting to load it.
The second (which I love) is accept/reject images (and cookies) on a per-site basis. Each time a page wants to load an image (or set a cookie) from a site it's not loaded an image from before, it asks you if you want to load images from that site. 'Yes' to load, 'no' to not load and 'Remember this decision' to never/always load images (or cookies) from that site in the future. So you can block images (but not text) from all your fave news sites and weblogs and places where you generally _read_ the content for faster access and more bandwidth available for all that pr0n you're downloading in the background
Get Mozilla, and you don't have to worry about your hosts file or junkbuster.