Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watdragon!lion!jyegiguere From: jyegiguere@lion.waterloo.edu (Eric Giguere) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: strins() Message-ID: <14558@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: 18 Jun 89 06:29:18 GMT References: <8906150029.AA22430@jade.berkeley.edu> <3930@sugar.hackercorp.com> <17740@louie.udel.EDU> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu Reply-To: jyegiguere@lion.waterloo.edu (Eric Giguere) Followup-To: comp.lang.c Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 24 In article limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes: >If the user doesn't want it to be inlined, they simply #undef it >and now the linker will try to find that routine first in the >current module (.o file) then in one of the libraries. ANSI also >dictates that the linkers must perform in this way. Frankly I don't like the idea of having the compiler rename printf() on me by default... I think defining a macro that would turn ON the "tiny printf" substitution would be better. One thing I'm curious about, though, is where you got the idea that the ANSI specs say anything about the linkers? I can't find that statement about the linkers having to perform that way at all. If that's true then none of the C compilers on IBM mainframes can be conforming compilers because the standard IBM linker (on CMS at least) will not link a set of files with duplicate identifiers.... I think this discussion has passed the scope of this group... further comments should go to comp.lang.c.... Eric Giguere 268 Phillip St #CL-46 For the curious: it's French ("jee-gair") Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6G9 Bitnet : GIGUERE at WATCSG (519) 746-6565 Internet: giguere@aries5.UWaterloo.ca "Nothing but urges from HELL!!"