Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!uwvax!geowhiz!karsh
From: karsh@geowhiz.UUCP (Bruce Karsh)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MAJOR ANSI C FLAW (my opinion, of course)
Message-ID: <585@geowhiz.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Oct-87 20:59:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: geowhiz.585
Posted: Sun Oct 18 20:59:53 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Oct-87 06:50:43 EDT
References: <1132@gilsys.UUCP> <1246@bsu-cs.UUCP> <6543@brl-smoke.ARPA> <104@aimt.UUCP> <6562@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: karsh@geowhiz.UUCP (Bruce Karsh)
Organization: UW Madison, Geology Dept.
Lines: 23

In article <6562@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <104@aimt.UUCP> breck@aimt.UUCP (Robert Breckinridge Beatie) writes:
>>Hmmm...  why is a 6 character limit necessary in any environment?
>
>Linker restriction.

  Am I missing something in this argument?  Is the argument that vendors
are able to write ANSI C compilers, but they are unable to modify their
linkers to allow long names?  Why is it that they can do all the work needed
to write an ANSI compatible C compiler, but they can't extend the name
length limit in their linkers?

  Are their linkers really that complex?



-- 

Bruce Karsh
U. Wisc. Dept. Geology and Geophysics
1215 W Dayton, Madison, WI 53706
(608) 262-1697
{ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!geowhiz!karsh