Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!agate!bionet!ucselx!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!chook.ua.oz
From: cagney@chook.ua.oz (Andrew Cagney - aka Noid)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Liborders, reboots and a mundane matter
Message-ID: <1126@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
Date: 8 Jul 90 04:32:50 GMT
References: <1725@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>
Sender: news@ucs.adelaide.edu.au
Lines: 39

From article <1725@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>, by eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Andrew J
>
> 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 ?

I beleive your correct, the process is deterministic, however there is always
that wonderful phrase: `for any given input' :-)

Depending on which way you initially build an unordered library you could
end up with a slightly different ordered final library.

For instance you could build your initial library using:
	ar r draftc.a string/*.s
	ar r draftc.a ansi/*.s
alternativly you could use
	ar r ansi/*.s
	ar r string/*.s
which would change the initial library order:
	=> changes the output from lorder	
		=> tsort would create its graph in a different order
			=> tsort outputs a slightly different final list

				Am I correct?
					Andrew Cagney

Sorry about the below:

   Barron `Wim' your address ``tgcpwd@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl'' just bounced :-(
   with lots of:

Received: from tuegate.tue.nl by rc6.urc.tue.nl with SMTP id AA06760
  (5.64+/IDA-1.3.1 for tgcpwd@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl); Sun, 8 Jul 90 06:17:49 +0200
Received: by tuegate.tue.nl (5.57/1.35)
    id AA04149; Sun, 8 Jul 90 06:14:57 +0200

But it took about 2 minutes to go from oz to nl and back :-)