Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:2632 comp.misc:7608
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)
Message-ID: <1989Dec7.132531.7960@twwells.com>
Date: 7 Dec 89 13:25:31 GMT
References: <1989Dec6.154103.2078@twwells.com> <14850@well.UUCP>
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 58

In article <14850@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes:
: 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?

Specifically because those few linkers I know of that permit
disassembling an object file and using just the pieces work with
object files that are, essentially, archives. That is to say, if
you compiled several functions into the one object file, each
function occupied a physically distinct part of the file; taking
the object file apart was little more complex than just copying
some particular part of the file.

None of these machines ran C. They would have had real problems
with C, since it would have been hard to implement file scope
with those linkers. (I know, I had to try to do something similar
with one of them.)

The second requirement is there, not as an absolute requirement,
but as a "reasonableness" requirement. None of those linkers
would have been useful in a modern environment. Certainly a linker
that a C compiler exists for is minimally "reasonable". I'd be
willing to entertain other linkers, so long as they aren't overly
restrictive.

: 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?

An ad hominem deserves an ad hominem in response: fuck you, Mr.
Poskanzer. I do not appreciate personal attacks.

And, to answer your question: yes, of course I looked.

We now have one linker (a VMS linker, mentioned in a deleted part
of the article). But I'd like to see some more.

After all, the point under discussion is:

: }Most linkers will not take, from a single object file, just those
: }routines needed by the rest of the program.

Which is to say that there *are* some linkers that will. I happen
not to have used any recently, and the ones that I did were
really brain damaged, but I can see how one would do such a
linker. (BTW, it happens that I've never used VMS.)

*One* linker certainly does not negate "most". So, without at
least a few more examples, there isn't any reason to doubt the
"most". And, unless someone comes up with a few more, there is no
point in discussing this further.

---
Bill                    { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com