[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Updated maint-guide contents, question on style -- ELF/compiled language

On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Justin B Rye wrote:
> References to ELF are a bit more technical than there's any need for.
> I assure you there really are "compiled" and "interpreted" languages,
> and those are the terms normally used to refer to them - see:
> 	"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiled_language";
> 	"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreted_language";
> A "compiler language" would be a language used for or by a compiler
> (not necessarily the same as the language it's compiling), and
> likewise for an "interpreter language".

I correct myself and agree on your poit about "compiled language".

Although "written" is true, I wanted to stress "compiled" part to get
executables.  Also, this compiled code can not be machine independent
java-byte code etc.  Thus I wanted ELF here.

So these 2 texts are what I wanted to be a matching set.

* executables written in an interpreted language such as POSIX shell
* ELF binary executables compiled from languages such as C and C++

If you say adding compiled before "languages" is better, I will do so.

I removed ulink for ELF for all around here and left one in the later
section on dh_shlibdeps to make PDF look nicer.

(FYI: Even some text data generation can be arch-dep process if it is
not written carefully for Unicode range characters such as BOM-less


Reply to: