 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:480a144b@news.povray.org...
> Tim Cook wrote:
> > ....PnP device drivers are programmed into the device themselves, not
> > bundled as generic packages with windows
>
> This is actually true for some types of USB devices.
My laptop 3G modem does this too. Windows initially sees it as a CDRom, with
the installation program on it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> My laptop 3G modem does this too. Windows initially sees it as a CDRom, with
> the installation program on it.
Then there's the old Atari 800 modem, which looked for ten consecutive
failed requests to read the boot sector off the floppy drive and on the
eleventh try said "Oh! Me! Here I am!" and proceeded to install the
drivers. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've had occasion to look at MS Windows binaries and I have never seen
anything resembling a comment from the source. When I think about it, I
wonder how one would intentionaly preserve their comments in a compiled
binary. Their may be a way, but I don't know about it. I would guess it
would have to be a compiler switch I've never used.
On the other hand, I have seen source code from MS Windows in it's original
form before and seen some very bad programming habits. (Such as the use of
goto in source written in C)
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Halbert wrote:
> When I think about it, I
> wonder how one would intentionaly preserve their comments in a compiled
> binary.
I'm wondering if whoever invented this idea might have been thinking of
things like in the .NET compiled objects where it might be storing
java-doc-like descriptions of the interface routines in the binaries.
Technically, comments from the source, but not really what a programmer
would think of as "comments from the source." That, module attributes
(for run-time reflection, whatever they're called in .NET), debugging
symbols, etc?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Halbert wrote:
>> When I think about it, I wonder how one would intentionaly preserve
>> their comments in a compiled binary.
>
> I'm wondering if whoever invented this idea might have been thinking of
> things like in the .NET compiled objects where it might be storing
> java-doc-like descriptions of the interface routines in the binaries.
> Technically, comments from the source, but not really what a programmer
> would think of as "comments from the source." That, module attributes
> (for run-time reflection, whatever they're called in .NET), debugging
> symbols, etc?
>
More than likely debugging symbols, and they just didn't understand what
those are.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:480b92c5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> More than likely debugging symbols, and they just didn't understand what
> those are.
Except, AFAIK, the symbols aren't included in any MS program. If you want
the debugging symbols, you have to download them seperatly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw escribió:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote
>> More than likely debugging symbols, and they just didn't understand what
>> those are.
>
> Except, AFAIK, the symbols aren't included in any MS program. If you want
> the debugging symbols, you have to download them seperatly.
Windows never defined a way to include debugging symbols inside the
executable. It's always in separate .pdb files.
If you compile Windows programs with gcc, with debugging symbols
enabled, they end up inside the .exe like on Linux, and gdb works on
them; but it's incompatible with MSVC debugger. And viceversa; gdb
doesn't understand .pdb symbol files.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> Except, AFAIK, the symbols aren't included in any MS program. If you want
> the debugging symbols, you have to download them seperatly.
Except they're technically not "debugging symbols" in DLLs and .NET
stuff, since you dynamically link them. They're entry points for the
linking loader, not for the debugger.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:53:31 +0100, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom>
did spake, saying:
> those .cab files windows hoards aren't full of drivers for 50,000
> flavours of hardware.
Should have told him that cabs always come with drivers and that's how
Windows moves its files around using the GetTaxi call.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
>> flavours of hardware.
>
> Should have told him that cabs always come with drivers and that's how
> Windows moves its files around using the GetTaxi call.
>
Excellent! :-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
