Re: Python recompile

On 3/5/2025 10:35 PM, Stuart Redmann wrote:
> geodandw <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:30:53 -0500
>>>> James Kuyper <[email protected]> wibbled:
>>>>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 16:58:20 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 15:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Lew Pitcher <[email protected]> gabbled:
>>>>>>> First off, this isn't really on-topic for comp.lang.c, as it is a question
>>>>>>> regarding a linker, interacting
>>>>>>> with the results of various options given to a specific compiler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a comp.lang.c.linker group?
>>>>>
>>>>> comp.lang.c is about using the C programming language. Linkers are
>>>>> independent of the programming language, and can be used to link
>>>>
>>>> Without compilers and linkers a C program would just be a load of text.
>>>
>>> Without computers, keyboards and monitors most C programs wouldn't be
>>> much use, either. That doesn't make a malfunctioning computer monitor a
>>> C problem. And it doesn't make a linkage problems a C problem either.
>>>
>>>>> together programs written in many different languages. The subject line
>>>>> and the text of the error messages indicate that it's a Python program,
>>>>> so why would a group devoted to C be in any way appropriate?
>>>>
>>>> If you'd taken 2 seconds to look at it you'd realise the issue was building
>>>> the Python source code which is written in C.
>>>
>>> The indentations of the first message cross-posted to comp.lang.c and
>>> comp.lang.c++ suggest that it was the latest in a series of earlier
>>> messages posted somewhere else (comp.lang.python?). Those earlier
>>> messages might have contained additional information. If that
>>> information was relevant, it should have been included when the message
>>> was first cross-posted to comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++. You might be
>>> right about it being "Python source code ... written in C", but nothing
>>> in the messages that were posted here makes that obvious.
>>>
>>> That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>
>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
> 
> Members of this group are quite likely old (only old people remember Usenet
> it seems), maybe even retired. 

I am 47, kind of old?


> Old people are often a bit set in their way
> (correcting your grammar all the time, trying to force their political
> views on you, etc. etc.)

;^)

> 
> Also, programming tends to attract people that can handle highly formalized
> thinking, and thus also people who have OCD to a higher or lower degree.
> Think of them as if they were Sheldon. They probably don‘t see that their
> musings about topicality of your question won’t help you at all, they have
> simply hijacked your thread to discuss about whether linker problems are
> topical in this newsgroup (they could have done this in a separate thread).
> 
> I have to admit that this thread turned out to be the most interesting
> since a long time, although not for OP. It’s like the ramblings of an old
> man that you asked about help with your spark plugs and he ends up talking
> about his experiences during WWII. Don‘t take offense, nod politely, and
> find someone who’s actually going to help you ;-)
> 
> IIRC, there are two different ways of compiling code, position dependent or
> position independent (PIC). Apparently you cannot mix these two kinds of
> code into a single executable. So if you are using a library that has been
> compiled with PIC turned on, you’ll have to compile your code the same way.
> There should be a command line parameter/IDE setting to do so, depending on
> your toolchain.
>