Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ll-xn!mit-amt!mit-eddie!cybvax0!foxvax5!dbr
From: dbr@foxvax5.UUCP (D.B. Robinson )
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: ranlib and ``ucb''
Message-ID: <292@foxvax5.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Jul-86 08:05:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: foxvax5.292
Posted: Tue Jul  8 08:05:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jul-86 06:47:14 EDT
References: <1916@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1278@ncoast.UUCP>
Reply-To: dbr@foxvax5.UUCP (D.B. Robinson (Douglas))
Organization: Foxboro Company, Inc., Foxboro, MA 02035
Lines: 33
Keywords: Archive Library, Ranlib, Cycles

<object library sacrifice>

Now that System V no longer supports ranlib(1), what happens to the code
in libraries that have cycles in their references?  By cycles I mean:

	file x.c:
		rock() {
			...
			hardness();
			...
		}

	file y.c:
		hardness() {
			...
			rock();
			...
		}

These sort of things do happen.  This is a fairly simple case of
a cycle.  Three or more levels can and do happen occasionally.
The lorder(1) and tsort(1) pair that existed previously gave error
messages in this case.  Ranlib was a must if you happened to put
the *.o in the opposite order from the call used when linking (i.e.
main() calls hardness(), but x.o is in the archive before y.o).

Are these cases still covered?  I expect so, but how?

Douglas Robinson	jobs don't kill programmers, programmers kill jobs
The Foxboro Company
MS 04-3A		cybvax0!foxvax5!dbr
38 Neponset Avenue
Foxboro, MA 02035	617/543-8750