Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbdkc1!cbnap!whp From: whp@cbnap.UUCP (W. H. Pollock x4575 3S235) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: ranlib and ``ucb'' Message-ID: <144@cbnap.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Jul-86 10:40:08 EDT Article-I.D.: cbnap.144 Posted: Thu Jul 10 10:40:08 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 08:33:42 EDT References: <1916@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1278@ncoast.UUCP> <292@foxvax5.UUCP> Reply-To: whp@cbnap.UUCP (W. H. Pollock x4575 3S235) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 25 Keywords: Archive Library, Ranlib, Cycles In article <292@foxvax5.UUCP> dbr@foxvax5.UUCP (D.B. Robinson (Douglas)) writes: > > >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: > ... ranlib is no longer needed because its job is being done by the new ar, so cycles within a single archive library are indeed covered. The "lorder|tsort" stuff is for efficiency only. A more interesting problem is with cycles between archive libraries. In this case there are two solutions (short of restructuring the libraries); the easy one is to list the offending library twice on the cc (or ld) command line (e.g., "cc ... x.a y.a x.a"). A better solution is to use the "-u" option to ld, which causes to be undefined *before* any libraries are scanned. W. H. Pollock, UUCP: ...{ihnp4,cbosgd}!cbnap!whp DELPHI: WHP GEnie: W.POLLOCK "The opinions expressed above are ficticious. Any resemblance to the opinions of persons living or dead is purely coincidental."