Author Topic: 32 hour clock  (Read 4665 times)

Master of Reality

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,249
  • Kudos: 177
    • http://www.bobhub.tk
Disorder | Rating
Paranoid: Moderate
Schizoid: Moderate
Linux User #283518
'It takes more than a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head to stop Bob'

Master of Reality

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,249
  • Kudos: 177
    • http://www.bobhub.tk
32 hour clock
« Reply #16 on: 23 August 2002, 16:52 »
its now:
2002:199:00:02:08
Disorder | Rating
Paranoid: Moderate
Schizoid: Moderate
Linux User #283518
'It takes more than a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head to stop Bob'

lazygamer

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,146
  • Kudos: 0
32 hour clock
« Reply #17 on: 23 August 2002, 18:55 »
Not to put this topic off-topic, but MOR is being a heretic(again). Learning how to program C is something that requires INTELLECT and BRAINS. When you join Bob you choose to lose those abilties in order to achieve a utopia.
For every hot Lesbian you see in a porno video, there is a fat, butch-like, or just downright ugly lesbian beeyotch marching in a gay pride parade, or bitching about same sex marriages. -Lazygamer on homosexuality

Stryker

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,258
  • Kudos: 41
32 hour clock
« Reply #18 on: 23 August 2002, 20:54 »
for compiling I usually find a standard 'make filenamewithout.c-or.cpp' to work well, for instance:
there is a file named test.cpp i want to compile
make test

I find the other way to lead to a lot more errors (at least in my cases).

voidmain

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,605
  • Kudos: 184
    • http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/
32 hour clock
« Reply #19 on: 23 August 2002, 23:37 »
Stryker, "make" is not a compiler, it's a project management utility that requires a "Makefile" (make script) which calls the compiler (such as gcc). It determines which files in your project need to be compiled and which are up to date.  For a small single file program you just call the compiler directly, although you could create a Makefile for it, but that is an extra step not really needed for an example like this..  If the project grew into multiple source/header/library files then yes, you would want to create a Makefile and use "make" to manage the project.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

Someone please remove this account. Thanks...

Stryker

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,258
  • Kudos: 41
32 hour clock
« Reply #20 on: 24 August 2002, 00:40 »
It does NOT require a Makefile to be executed. You can add the parameter of a target file to compile, it will work with a single-file project (excluding #includes). I copied your source to test.cpp and then did 'make test' and it compiled just fine. I am aware that it is just a shortcut to the gcc goodies, but it gets the job done.

voidmain

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,605
  • Kudos: 184
    • http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/
32 hour clock
« Reply #21 on: 24 August 2002, 01:26 »
I know what "make" is, I've only been using it for 10+ years.  But what I said is exactly true, it's designed to manage projects.  Yes, you can give it a source file as a parameter and it will call the appropriate compiler (assuming it is set up correctly, which in Linux it is by default) but I maintain for someone just starting they should learn from the basic level on up. "make" is a great thing and you will definitely need it as you progress into larger programs but for someone who has never programmed they should know what the "compiler" is. I didn't mean to offend you by the way, if that is what I did.
Someone please remove this account. Thanks...

Stryker

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,258
  • Kudos: 41
32 hour clock
« Reply #22 on: 24 August 2002, 02:37 »
I was offended at first, I thought you were trying to invalidate my post. It does have some value to it, and after you have the knowledge of how to compile things properly, then go ahead and use whatever method you like. I am just trying to show someone an easier route (easier is an opinion I know). But then again, I was reading and posting without sleep for 39 hours, I tend to take things the wrong way in such circumstances.

Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
32 hour clock
« Reply #23 on: 24 August 2002, 02:39 »
you may as well write a 2 or 3 line makefile though if you have a few programs in the same folder that will require the same options, yes?
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism

Kintaro

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6,545
  • Kudos: 255
  • I want to get the band back together!
    • JohnTate.org
32 hour clock
« Reply #24 on: 24 August 2002, 18:53 »
M0R, You should get XINETD to host a time server on your webserver, but have it feed the output of this 32 hour time program to it instead of normal time.

It will have too be set first!
Code: [Select]

Maybe we should make this a sourceforge project?

This one asks for the current time: (And does not work)
Code: [Select]
It gives me
 
quote:
gterm:[qb]
/tmp/cckFTqJM.o: In function `main':
/tmp/cckFTqJM.o(.text+0x40): undefined reference to `inputf'
/tmp/cckFTqJM.o(.text+0x5e): undefined reference to `inputf'
/tmp/cckFTqJM.o(.text+0x7c): undefined reference to `inputf'
/tmp/cckFTqJM.o(.text+0x9a): undefined reference to `inputf'
/tmp/cckFTqJM.o(.text+0xb8): undefined reference to `inputf'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status[/qb


What do i do now (im used to iostream.h not stdio.h)

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: Ex Eleven / b0b ]


theangelofdeath69

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.kaltemartech.com/
32 hour clock
« Reply #25 on: 24 August 2002, 19:11 »
Ahh, what the hell.

32 hour time?  Does this mean I don't have to stay at school for as long as I do?  If so, I'm adopting it.  Yep.  Go on and build a timeserver for it.

Oh, I'm a Windows Use-

STOP 0x4H KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED  
Specifications are for the weak and timid!
You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you stand!
Indentation?! - I will show you how to indent when I indent your skull!
What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'. Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake.
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak.
A TRUE Klingon Warrior does not comment on his code!
Klingon software does NOT have BUGS. It has FEATURES, and those features are too sophisticated for a Romulan pig like you to understand.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the original Klingon.
Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!

Kintaro

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6,545
  • Kudos: 255
  • I want to get the band back together!
    • JohnTate.org
32 hour clock
« Reply #26 on: 24 August 2002, 19:44 »
So how hard is it to set up a stream server for xinetd

theangelofdeath69

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.kaltemartech.com/
32 hour clock
« Reply #27 on: 24 August 2002, 19:45 »
XInetD?  Why not make your own (it'd probably be easier)
Specifications are for the weak and timid!
You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you stand!
Indentation?! - I will show you how to indent when I indent your skull!
What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'. Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake.
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak.
A TRUE Klingon Warrior does not comment on his code!
Klingon software does NOT have BUGS. It has FEATURES, and those features are too sophisticated for a Romulan pig like you to understand.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the original Klingon.
Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!

Kintaro

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6,545
  • Kudos: 255
  • I want to get the band back together!
    • JohnTate.org
32 hour clock
« Reply #28 on: 24 August 2002, 20:20 »
Code: [Select]
Its now in C++

theangelofdeath69

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.kaltemartech.com/
32 hour clock
« Reply #29 on: 24 August 2002, 20:22 »
Does it matter whether it's in C or C++?  Is there a performance change?
Specifications are for the weak and timid!
You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you stand!
Indentation?! - I will show you how to indent when I indent your skull!
What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'. Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake.
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak.
A TRUE Klingon Warrior does not comment on his code!
Klingon software does NOT have BUGS. It has FEATURES, and those features are too sophisticated for a Romulan pig like you to understand.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the original Klingon.
Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!