Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:2624 comp.misc:7597
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!well!jef
From: jef@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Coding standards (was Re: Programmer productivity)
Message-ID: <14850@well.UUCP>
Date: 6 Dec 89 23:43:23 GMT
References: <1989Dec6.154103.2078@twwells.com>
Reply-To: Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us>
Organization: Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric, Ada Lovelace Cabal
Lines: 30

In the referenced message, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) wrote:
}Care to name some specific systems where the linker could take
}apart an object file, and for which a reasonable C compiler
}exists?

Why the second requirement, Bill?

To be crystal clear about what is being discussed, it is the ability to
make a library from a single source file, and then at link time extract
only the referenced routines from that library.  No one is talking
about eliminating unreferenced routines from the main program.  Everyone
who is getting hysterical about their call-by-string hacks can stop
screaming now.

Anyway, the last time this discussion came up, I posted a transcript of
a session with the VMS FORTRAN compiler and the VMS linker.  They have
no problem at all separating a single source file into one object
module per routine.  The reaction then was, "Oh sure, FORTRAN can do
that, but we were discussing *real* languages."  "Real" languages
meaning C, of course.

So, why the second requirement, Bill?  Have you ever actually checked
whether any of the non-Unix systems you've used have this ability?  Are
you afraid of what you might find?
---
Jef

  Jef Poskanzer  jef@well.sf.ca.us  {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef
"An object never serves the same function as its image - or its name."
                           -- Rene Magritte