Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 16 Jun 1996 02:44:17 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Daniel Lehnberg <> | Subject | Re: make |
| |
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 | *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
|  |