Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:2607 comp.misc:7573 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.misc Subject: Re: Coding standards (was Re: Programmer productivity) Keywords: One function per file? Message-ID: <1989Dec5.152225.25770@twwells.com> Date: 5 Dec 89 15:22:25 GMT References: <34796@regenmeister.uucp> <2226@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <128179@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <546@sagpd1.UUCP> <4727@netcom.UUCP> <4290@pegasus.ATT.COM> <9185@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lines: 21 In article <9185@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: : In article <4290@pegasus.ATT.COM> dmt@pegasus.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: : >There IS one argument, in some cases a compelling one, for "one function : >per file". In general, linkers aren't smart enough to link just : >PART of a binary file (.OBJ or .o), when that file contains a function : >needed by the link. : : WHAT? What year is this? I don't think I've ever used a linker that : didn't eliminate unused routines. Any such linker would be seriously : brain damaged. Then you have been in a very limited universe. Most linkers will not take, from a single object file, just those routines needed by the rest of the program. Most linkers *will* take only those object files needed from an archive, but that is not the same thing. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com