Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!bru-cc!eesrajm
From: eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Andrew J Michael)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Liborders, reboots and a mundane matter
Summary: Well, not quite ...
Message-ID: <1725@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>
Date: 7 Jul 90 15:08:10 GMT
References: <23637@nigel.udel.EDU>
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Lines: 36

In article <23637@nigel.udel.EDU>, AJB@dlvh.daresbury.ac.uk writes:
> 1. LIBORDERS
>   Recent discussions on liborders seems to have neglected a fundamental
>   problem which maybe someone out there has addressed(?)
>   I'm a 2Mb STE owner who therefore has RANLIB capability but that does
>   NOT help in the construction of a 'truly up-to-date' libc.a so PC
>   and ST(x) owners are in the same quandary regarding the following
>   scenario.
> 
>   My conceptual problem is basically this:
>    When you're upgrading Minix you recompile OTHER/ANSI/POSIX etc using
>    your current libc.a
>    Changes in the source libraries are therefore compiled using the 'old'
>    libc.a and therefore incorporate machine code from that library.

Umm - No.

The contents of your current libc.a are irrelevant until you try to link
something with it.  You don't link anything when building the library
sources, so libc.a doesn't affect the library sources at all.

However, I am bemused at recent comments that library orders seem to be 
different for different people.  If we are using the same sources and
Makefiles, how can the library order be non-deterministic ?

Comments anyone ?

Andy Michael


-- 
Andy Michael (eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk)      " Software cannot be written to
85 Hawthorne Crescent                        be completely free of errors."
West Drayton
Middlesex                                    - Acorn Computers Ltd.
UB7 9PA