Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: linkers - next frontier? Message-ID: <598@opus.UUCP> Date: Sat, 7-Jul-84 03:29:54 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.598 Posted: Sat Jul 7 03:29:54 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 9-Jul-84 01:09:36 EDT References: <1604@sri-arpa.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 20 >From: Mike Caplinger > >I can't believe that somebody is proposing ANOTHER standard that imposes a >6-character uniqueness limit on external names! How much longer are we >going to be stuck with somebody's 1960s linker implementation choice? (This was in reference to the developing C standard.) I agree that it's about time to tackle problems with lame-brain linkers! Short names is only one of a whole raft of problems we've got with present-day linkers. I suspect that a lot of the difficulty in getting language systems which provide a reasonable module facility lies with linkers. If you want a language to flourish, you need separate compilation and the ability to link with routines written in other languages. (Yes, that was a bit of a rash generalization. Spare me the flames, please.) That means you either have to make do with the existing linker (which quite likely has NO provision whatsoever for cross-checking interfaces at link time) or write your own linker. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Are you making this up as you go along?