Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!uunet!inmet!porges
From: porges@inmet.inmet.com
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Coding standards (was Re: Progr
Message-ID: <24000001@inmet>
Date: 6 Dec 89 17:15:00 GMT
References: <9185@hoptoad.uucp>
Lines: 39
Nf-ID: #R:hoptoad.uucp:9185:inmet:24000001:000:1044
Nf-From: inmet.inmet.com!porges    Dec  6 12:15:00 1989


>/* Written  9:33 pm  Dec  4, 1989 by tim@hoptoad.uucp in inmet:comp.misc */
>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.
-- 
>Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com


    Then you've never used Sun3 ld, or any other Unix linker.  Remember,
he's talking about parts of a .o file, not members of a library.  For example:

a.c:

main() {
    b()
}


b.c:

b() {
}

c() {
}

    The resulting link of a.o and b.o will include the routine 'c'.  This can
be verified by nm, or by inspecting the a.out file with adb.

					-- Don Porges
					porges@inmet.inmet.com
					..uunet!inmet!porges