Re: Report from the LuxAsm mailing list for Betov
- From: "NoDot" <no_dot@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Apr 2005 18:03:01 -0700
Beth wrote:
> Geez Louise, NoDot, you're creating "black propoganda" against
yourself
> here!! There is no such problem...
Well, forgive me for thinking there could be a problem and reporting
it.
I looked back at the section of Randall's post I sent to the
LuxAsm-devel list. It was stating that if one of the sections failed,
then the entire thing will fall down. I don't see how the problem
differs from RosAsm to LuxAsm. Unless the assembler module crashing is
reported back to the IDE or whatever called it by Linux instead of
trashing the whole thing, assembler and all, the problem is the same.
> In fact, perhaps a different angle should be taken to explain this:
I get your design; I'm talking about a case where one of the modules
crashes.
> Beth :)
NoDot,
....
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Report from the LuxAsm mailing list for Betov
- From: Randall Hyde
- Re: Report from the LuxAsm mailing list for Betov
- References:
- Report from the LuxAsm mailing list for Betov
- From: \\\\o//annabee
- Re: Report from the LuxAsm mailing list for Betov
- From: Betov
- Re: Report from the LuxAsm mailing list for Betov
- From: Beth
- Report from the LuxAsm mailing list for Betov
- Prev by Date: Re: What's OOP?
- Next by Date: Re: An Object-Oriented Syntax for x86 Assembly
- Previous by thread: Re: Report from the LuxAsm mailing list for Betov
- Next by thread: Re: Report from the LuxAsm mailing list for Betov
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|