Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!westmark!mole-end!mat From: mat@mole-end.UUCP (Mark A Terribile) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Let's write a new linker! (Was: Re: Naming Conventions) Summary: Linkers' roots go deep ... Keywords: name mangling linking symbol clashes Message-ID: <474@mole-end.UUCP> Date: 3 Feb 91 06:44:40 GMT References: <60352@microsoft.UUCP> <1604@tcs.tcs.com> Organization: mole-end--private system. admin: mole-end!newtnews Lines: 21 > What, with name mangling and symbol clashes, what we really need is a > new linker. The whole concept of name mangling just to be able to use the > venerable UNIX linker should be tossed. Yeah, and I can hear to screams of > agony as some people would switch to such a linker before others. Still, > I've long thought name mangling is revolting. I'm inclined to agree that we need better linkers, but I don't know how we can get them. It's hard to force linkers on operating systems, especially since there are a few machines (HP3000, for example) whose architectures require that the linker be a trusted program to ensure the security of the operating system. Probably the best way to coax this change on the world is to design a new set of linker capabilities which can be implemented either by a new linker or by a preprocessor plus the `real' linker. You may also have to modify assemblers, etc. Come to think of it, the preprocessors might just have to resort to name mangling. (ugh!) -- (This man's opinions are his own.) From mole-end Mark Terribile