How a linker works (continued)

J

jacob navia

In the last installement we looked into the object files and what they
contain.

Some people insisted that I was generalizing too much and there could be
C implementations without object files (like C interpreters) and C
implementations that do not link files in separate compilation but just
parse and digest each module, making the whole code generation step in
the linker, from an unknown representation.

Granted, werid implementation and special options may exists. Here I am
speaking about the very common (or most common case) where the compiler
produces traditional object files, stored in the disk somewhere.

Those object files in an abstract way contain:
(1) A symbol table that specifies whiwh symbols are exported and which
symbols are imported
(2) Several "Sections" containing the data of the program. (Code
instructions, initialized tables, and just reserved space)
(3) A series of relocation records that specify which parts of the data
(code or tables) must be patched by the linker to insert the external
symbols required by the module

The linking process
-------------------

The linker opens all object files that it receives, and builds a symbol
table. In this table we have several sets of symbols

(a) The set of defined symbols, not in the common section. All this
symbols have a fixed address already.

(b) The set of symbols in the common section

(c) The set of undefined symbols that have been seen as externals but
where the definition is not yet processed.

Symbols can be moved from the undefined set, into the common or into the
defined symbols.

This needs some explanation. Suppose you have in the file file1.c the
following declaration:

int iconst;

The symbol ‘iconst’ will be assigned to the common section that is
initialized to zero at program startup. But consider what happens if you
include ‘file2.c’ in the link, that contains the declaration:

int iconst = 53433;

The linker will move the symbol ‘iconst’, from the common section to the
data section. The definition in file1.c will be lost. If you relied in
"iconst" being zero at startup now you are wrong.

And there are worst things that can be done:
file1.c:
int buf[256];

file2.c:

int buff[512];

The linker will leave ‘buf’ in the common section, but will set its size
to the bigger value, i.e. 512. This is harmless, but beware that you
make a definition in a file3.c

int buff[4] = {0,0,0,0};

Your table will have a size of just four positions instead of 512!!

This can be tested, for instance, with the following two files:
file t1.c
int tab[12];

File t2.c
int tab[256];
int main(void){return 0;}

Linking t1.c and t2.c with MSVC 8 we obtain an executable *without any
warnings* not even at the highest warning level.

In the linker of lcc-win I added a warning:
in t1.obj warning: '_tab' (defined with size 48)
is redefined in t2.obj with size 1024

The linker of gnu doesn't emit any warning:
root@ubuntu:/tmp# gcc -Wall t1.c t2.c
root@ubuntu:/tmp#

The explanation that will be commonly given for this behavior is that
any definition in the "common" section (non initialized data) is a
"tentative definition" and only valid until another definition is seen
by the linker.

Dave Hanson, one of the authors of the original lcc compiler told me
this, when we discussed about this problem:

jacob:
Dave Hanson:

<<quote>>
For the record, the declaration for p is indeed a tentative definition,
but that status persists only until the end of the compilation unit,
i.e., the end of f1.c. Since there's no subsequent external definition
of p, the tentative declaration acts exactly as if there was a
file-scope declaration for p with an initializer equal to 0. (See Sec.
3.7.2 of the ANSI Standard, which I think is Sec. 6.7.2 of the ISO
Standard). As a result, p is null at program startup--assuming there are
no other similar declarations for p.

This example illustrates nicely a problem with the common storage model:
You can't determine whether or not a declaration is also a definition by
examining just the program text, and it's easy to get strange behaviors.
In this example, there was only one definition, which passes without
complaint from linkers. In the stricter definition/reference model,
linkers would complain about multiple definitions when combining the
object code for f1.c and f2.c. This example also shows why it's best to
initialize globals, because linkers will usually catch these kinds of
multiple definitions.

The common model also permits C's (admittedly weak) type system to be
violated. I've seen programmers declare "int x[2]" in one file and
"double x" in another one, for example, just so they can access x as a
double and as a pair of ints.

For a good summary of the four models of external
definitions/declarations, see Sec. 4.8 in Harbison & Steele, C: A
Reference Manual, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, 1995.

<<end quote>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relocating all symbols
----------------------

Let's come back to our linker however. I will outline with lcclnk and
windows as exmaples, but in Unix and many other systems, the operations
done by the linker are very similar.

The next thing to do is to go through all symbols, and decide whether
they will go into the final symbol table or not. Many of them are
discarded, since they are local symbols of each compilation unit.

Global symbols need to be relocated, i.e. the ‘value’ of the symbol has
to be set to its final address. This is easy now that the position of
the section that contains the symbol is exactly known: we just go
through them setting the value field to the right number.


The algorithm outline is simple:
1. Read the relocation information from the object file.

2. According to the type of relocation, adjust the value of the symbol.
The relocations supported by lcclnk are just a few: the pc-relative
relocation (code 7, and code 20), the normal 32-bit relocation (code 6),
and two types of relocations for the debug information, code 10 and 11.

3. Save the position within the executable file where the relocation is
being done in the case of relocation type 6 (normal 32 bits relocation),
to later build the .reloc section if this is needed.

Normally this is needed only when generating a dll, since executables
aren’t relocated under windows.

The .reloc section of the executable is data for the program loader, to
tell it where are the addresses that it should patch when loading the
file into memory.

Other linkers more complicated than lcc's support more fancy stuff. A
symbol can be included only once even if it appears several times, and
many other things

Performing the relocations
--------------------------
More specifically, what the linker does, is fixing the data/code
references that each module contains from all others, patching the code
with the offsets that the external symbols have, now that the positions
of all sections are known. For a C source line like:

foo(5);

the linker reads the corresponding relocation record emitted by the
compiler, and looks up the symbol ‘foo’ in the symbol table. It patches
the zeroes that are stored by the assembler at the position following
the call opcodes with the relative offset from the point of the call to
the address of foo. This will allow the processor to make a PC relative
call instruction: the 4 bytes after the call instruction contain a
32-bit offset to the address of foo.

Using the utility pedump, you can see this process. Consider the
following well-known program:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc,char *argv[])
{

printf("Hello\n");
}

Compile this with:
lcc -g2 hello.c
Now, disassemble hello.obj with pedump like this:
pedump /A hello.obj
You will see near the end of the long listing that follows, the
disassembled text section:

section 00 (.text) size: 00020 file offs: 00220
--------------------------------------------------------------
_main: Size 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
[0000000] 55 pushl %ebp
[0000001] 89e5 movl %esp,%ebp
Line 5
[0000003] 6800000000 pushl $0 (_$2) (relocation)
[0000008] e800000000 call _printf (relocation)
[0000013] 83c404 addl $4,%esp
Line 6
[0000016] 5d popl %ebp
[0000017] c3 ret
[0000018] 0000 addb %al,(%eax)

Let’s follow the relocation to the function printf. You will see that
pedump has a listing of the relocations that looks like this:
Section 01 (.text) relocations

Address Type Symbol Index Symbol Name
------- ---- ------------ ----- ----
4 DIR32 4 _$2
9 REL32 16 _printf

The linker will then take the bytes starting at the address 4, and put
the address of the symbol 4 in the symbol table of main.obj. It will
search the address of printf, and put the relative address, i.e. the
difference between the address of printf and the address of main+9 in
those bytes starting at byte 9.

As you can see there are several types of relocations, each specifying a
different way of doing these additions. The compiler emits only three
types of relocations:
• Type 6 : Direct 32-bit reference to the symbols virtual address
• Type 7: Direct 32-bit references to the symbols virtual address, base
not included.
• Type 20: PC-relative 32-bit reference to the symbols virtual address.

This last one is the one used in the relocation to printf. We have to
know too that the relative call is relative to the next instruction,
i.e. to the byte 13 and not to the byte 9. Happily for us the linker now
knows this stuff...
 
E

Eric Sosman

jacob said:
In the last installement we looked into the object files and what they
contain.
[...]
Next installment will treat the object libraries

Be still, my heart.
 
V

vippstar

<big article about linkers, assembly & others>
What's the actual intent behind these posts?
Bring revolution to clc & usenet? Inform poor souls that figured out
how to browse clc but not other groups? Bring more noise & trolls?
Annoy the "no stack in C" people?
You could get a blog if you like to write articles..
 
J

jacob navia

<big article about linkers, assembly & others>
What's the actual intent behind these posts?
Bring revolution to clc & usenet? Inform poor souls that figured out
how to browse clc but not other groups? Bring more noise & trolls?
Annoy the "no stack in C" people?
You could get a blog if you like to write articles..

file a.c
int a[12];

file b.c
int a[256];
int main(void){return0;}

This is a common error, that provokes no warnings. I wanted to
discuss this state of affairs.

Read the article before you say something about it.
 
K

Kaz Kylheku

In the last installement we looked into the object files and what they
contain.

This kind of information is only useful when it is completely precise
with respect to some particular object format, so that you can
implement software that handles a particular object format.

I can't write anything based on your descriptions.

Readers can be better informed about how linking works from the ANSI C
Rationale:

http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/rat/title.html

Section 3.1.2.2.
Those object files in an abstract way contain:
(1) A symbol table that specifies whiwh symbols are exported and which
symbols are imported

So, like, you mean that a C translation unit can provide definitions
of external names, and makes references to external names, and the
translated unit still does this somehow?

How could they leave something like that out of the language spec?
(2) Several "Sections" containing the data of the program. (Code
instructions, initialized tables, and just reserved space)

You mean that stuff like functions, literal objects and initializers
have a translated image?
(3) A series of relocation records that specify which parts of the data
(code or tables) must be patched by the linker to insert the external
symbols required by the module

You mean, there is a way to find where the references are so they can
be resolved, and it's probably not done by scanning the translated
image of the code in search of some ambiguous bit pattern?

Very good! Next you're going to tell us that an image file contains a
header with the size of the picture and a bunch other parameters, and
a section full of numbers that specify the color intensity values of
the pixels.
The linking process
-------------------

The linker opens all object files that it receives, and builds a symbol
table. In this table we have several sets of symbols

(a) The set of defined symbols, not in the common section. All this
symbols have a fixed address already.

(b) The set of symbols in the common section

This needs some explanation. Suppose you have in the file file1.c the
following declaration:

int iconst;

This is actually a tentative definition. If no redefinition for iconst
is seen by the end of the translation unit, it is treated as ``int
iconst = 0''.
The symbol 'iconst' will be assigned to the common section that is
initialized to zero at program startup.

You seem to be describing only the Fortran Common model here.
But consider what happens if you
include 'file2.c' in the link, that contains the declaration:

int iconst = 53433;

Undefined behavior. There must be extactly one definition for an
external name. Or rather for one that is used; names that are not used
need not have definitions.

This is allowed by the ``relaxed ref/def'' model, not allowed by the
``strict ref/def'' model.
The linker will move the symbol 'iconst', from the common section to the
data section.

There are linkers which will behave this way. But others will do the
obvious thing and diagnose the multiple definition.

ISO C leaves it as undefined behavior because there are such crappy
linkers still in use.

According to the rationale ``The model adopted in the Standard is a
combination of features of the strict ref/def model and the
initialization model.''

But the undefined behaviors, like not requiring diagnosis of multiple
definitions, mean that linkage can be implemented over the relaxed ref/
def model or the common model.
And there are worst things that can be done:
file1.c:
int buf[256];

file2.c:

int buff[512];

The linker will leave 'buf' in the common section, but will set its size
to the bigger value, i.e. 512.

Not any linker that anyone in his right mind would be writing today.
Not only is it simply a bad idea not to diagnose programming errors
like this (even if it's not required to do so), but a linker also has
to support other programming languages than C, such as C++. C++ has
the one definition rule (ODR), so in that language, the above is a
diagnosable semantic rule violation.
 
J

jacob navia

Kaz said:
And there are worst things that can be done:
file1.c:
int buf[256];

file2.c:

int buff[512];

The linker will leave 'buf' in the common section, but will set its size
to the bigger value, i.e. 512.

Not any linker that anyone in his right mind would be writing today.

I showed that both MSVC and GCC/GNU linkers accept this without
warnings. And this with MSVC 2008 and gcc 4.0.2, both relatively
recent versions.
Not only is it simply a bad idea not to diagnose programming errors
like this (even if it's not required to do so), but a linker also has
to support other programming languages than C, such as C++. C++ has
the one definition rule (ODR), so in that language, the above is a
diagnosable semantic rule violation.

I agree that this bad but the major versions of those compilers
do not diagnose anything, as you can see for yourself.
 
B

Ben Bacarisse

jacob navia said:
This can be tested, for instance, with the following two files:
file t1.c
int tab[12];

File t2.c
int tab[256];
int main(void){return 0;}

Linking t1.c and t2.c with MSVC 8 we obtain an executable *without any
warnings* not even at the highest warning level.

In the linker of lcc-win I added a warning:
in t1.obj warning: '_tab' (defined with size 48)
is redefined in t2.obj with size 1024

The linker of gnu doesn't emit any warning:
root@ubuntu:/tmp# gcc -Wall t1.c t2.c

*Please* post these articles in comp.programming. I'd join in a lot
more if I could do so and be topical. However, you are dead set on
knocking gcc without understanding it so...

<off-topic>
gcc uses the GNU linker ld. ld merges the common blocks to make tab
the larger of the two size regardless of the linking order. In this
case, I can't see why you'd want a diagnostic[1]. When a compilation
unit initialises the table (so it can't be merged) the GNU linker
*does* produce a warning:

/usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `tab' changed from 1024 in t1.o
to 16 in t2.o
</off-topic>

Next installment will treat the object libraries

Please post it where it belongs.

[1] OK, a case can be made for a diagnostic in all such cases, but you
are suggesting the gcc leads the programmer silently into a trap.
 
F

Flash Gordon

jacob navia wrote, On 26/03/08 16:21:
<big article about linkers, assembly & others>
What's the actual intent behind these posts?
Bring revolution to clc & usenet? Inform poor souls that figured out
how to browse clc but not other groups? Bring more noise & trolls?
Annoy the "no stack in C" people?
You could get a blog if you like to write articles..

file a.c
int a[12];

file b.c
int a[256];
int main(void){return0;}

This is a common error, that provokes no warnings.

On some implementations. On others it produces an error. It would be
more useful to simply tell people how to get there implementation to
produce an error for it. The implementations that I know for a fact will
produce an error are gcc/GNU ld under Linux when given specific options,
I believe you can get the same behaviour on AIX and SCO.
I wanted to
discuss this state of affairs.

It does not need masses of information about linkers to discus it and
the problem is not specific to C.
Read the article before you say something about it.

Try posting it to somewhere it is topical such as comp.programming. Are
you fundamentally unable to understand the concept of topicality or you
simply trolling?
 
K

Kaz Kylheku

Kaz said:
And there are worst things that can be done:
file1.c:
int buf[256];
file2.c:
int buff[512];
The linker will leave 'buf' in the common section, but will set its size
to the bigger value, i.e. 512.
Not any linker that anyone in his right mind would be writing today.

I showed that both MSVC and GCC/GNU linkers accept this without
warnings.

Ah yes. The combination of GNU C and the GNU linker won't accept it
if the arrays have initializers. This is true even if the initializers
are { 0 }.

Unlike what you said, it's not the linker that determines the
assignment of the symbol to the section. This is done by the compiler,
which emits pseudo-ops in the assembly output that control sectioning.

Tentative definitions are placed, by the gcc, into a section
called .comm, which is subject to special semantics purely for
backward compatibility with ancient programs which rely on that model.

However, normal definitions are placed into .bss.

The GNU linker has an option --warn-common which will diagnose the
merging of symbols in the common section.

So if you compile with:

gcc -Wl,--warn-common

the link succeeds, but you get a diagnostic.

Maybe the compiler itself can be coaxed into not doing the common
allocation in the first place. Aha, yes, the -fno-common option!

gcc -fno-common ...

Now the tentative definitions behave just like normal definitions, and
the link fails.

This is what C says: by the end of a translation unit, a tentative
definition becomes a fully fledged definition, is if with a zero
initializer. It does not remain some kind of second-class citizen.

It's somewhat braindamaged that -fno-common isn't the default. The
backward compatibility behavior should be explicitly requested with -
fcommon. Uninitialized definitions should go into .bss by default,
not .comm.

I'm going to patch this in the Linux distro that I maintain, to see
what breaks. I'm guessing that quite a few things, because any time a
programmer forgets to use ``extern'' in a header file declaration, and
include the header in two or more translation unit, you're going to
run into this.

It would be reasonable for -ansi -pedantic to imply -fno-common.
 
R

robertwessel2

And there are worst things that can be done:
file1.c:
int buf[256];

file2.c:

int buff[512];

The linker will leave 'buf' in the common section, but will set its size
to the bigger value, i.e. 512. This is harmless, but beware that you
make a definition in a file3.c

int buff[4] = {0,0,0,0};

Your table will have a size of just four positions instead of 512!!

This can be tested, for instance, with the following two files:
file t1.c
int tab[12];

File t2.c
int tab[256];
int main(void){return 0;}

Linking t1.c and t2.c with MSVC 8 we obtain an executable *without any
warnings* not even at the highest warning level.


This is one of the many good reason to use lint. And an area where C+
+ is arguably a "better C" than C.
 
D

Dann Corbit

Ben Bacarisse said:
jacob navia said:
This can be tested, for instance, with the following two files:
file t1.c
int tab[12];

File t2.c
int tab[256];
int main(void){return 0;}

Linking t1.c and t2.c with MSVC 8 we obtain an executable *without any
warnings* not even at the highest warning level.

In the linker of lcc-win I added a warning:
in t1.obj warning: '_tab' (defined with size 48)
is redefined in t2.obj with size 1024

The linker of gnu doesn't emit any warning:
root@ubuntu:/tmp# gcc -Wall t1.c t2.c

*Please* post these articles in comp.programming. I'd join in a lot
more if I could do so and be topical. However, you are dead set on
knocking gcc without understanding it so...

<off-topic>
gcc uses the GNU linker ld. ld merges the common blocks to make tab
the larger of the two size regardless of the linking order. In this
case, I can't see why you'd want a diagnostic[1]. When a compilation
unit initialises the table (so it can't be merged) the GNU linker
*does* produce a warning:

/usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `tab' changed from 1024 in t1.o
to 16 in t2.o
</off-topic>

Next installment will treat the object libraries

Please post it where it belongs.

[1] OK, a case can be made for a diagnostic in all such cases, but you
are suggesting the gcc leads the programmer silently into a trap.

C:\tmp>splint t1.c t2.c
Splint 3.1.1 --- 12 Mar 2007

t2.c(2,5): Variable tab redefined
A function or variable is redefined. One of the declarations should use
extern. (Use -redef to inhibit warning)
t1.c(2,5): Previous definition of tab

Finished checking --- 1 code warning

C:\tmp>lin t1.c t2.c

C:\tmp>"C:\Lint\Lint-nt" +v -i"C:\Lint" std.lnt -os(_LINT.TMP) t1.c t2.c
PC-lint for C/C++ (NT) Vers. 8.00u, Copyright Gimpel Software 1985-2006

--- Module: t1.c (C)

--- Module: t2.c (C)

C:\tmp>type _LINT.TMP | more

--- Module: t1.c (C)

--- Module: t2.c (C)
_
int tab[256];
t2.c(2) : Error 18: Symbol 'tab' redeclared (size) conflicts with line 2,
file
t1.c
t1.c(2) : Info 830: Location cited in prior message
_
int tab[256];
t2.c(2) : Error 14: Symbol 'tab' previously defined (line 2, file t1.c)
t1.c(2) : Info 830: Location cited in prior message

--- Global Wrap-up

Info 765: external 'tab' (line 2, file t1.c) could be made static
t1.c(2) : Info 830: Location cited in prior message
Warning 552: Symbol 'tab' (line 2, file t1.c) not accessed
t1.c(2) : Info 830: Location cited in prior message

---
output placed in _LINT.TMP

C:\tmp>type t1.c
/* file t1.c */
int tab[12];


C:\tmp>type t2.c
/* File t2.c */
int tab[256];
int main(void){tab[25] = 0; return 0;}

P.S.
There are plenty of instances of undefined behavior not caught by compilers.
P.P.S.
I do agree that it would be nice if compilers were omniscient (or closer
than they are today).
 
A

Antoninus Twink

<big article about linkers, assembly & others>
What's the actual intent behind these posts?
Bring revolution to clc & usenet? Inform poor souls that figured out
how to browse clc but not other groups? Bring more noise & trolls?
Annoy the "no stack in C" people?

This post really tells you all you need to know about clc. You're
expected to justify yourself for posting an informative article about an
essential part of C programming.

Will the madness end one day?
 
J

jacob navia

Kaz said:
Kaz said:
And there are worst things that can be done:
file1.c:
int buf[256];
file2.c:
int buff[512];
The linker will leave 'buf' in the common section, but will set its size
to the bigger value, i.e. 512.
Not any linker that anyone in his right mind would be writing today.
I showed that both MSVC and GCC/GNU linkers accept this without
warnings.

Ah yes. The combination of GNU C and the GNU linker won't accept it
if the arrays have initializers. This is true even if the initializers
are { 0 }.

Unlike what you said, it's not the linker that determines the
assignment of the symbol to the section.

I did not said that. The linker just uses the definitions
in the object file of course, and that is generated by the
compiler. Just a misunderstanding.
This is done by the compiler,
which emits pseudo-ops in the assembly output that control sectioning.

Yes, and those go into the object file.
Tentative definitions are placed, by the gcc, into a section
called .comm, which is subject to special semantics purely for
backward compatibility with ancient programs which rely on that model.

Like lcclnk, and MSVC.

However, normal definitions are placed into .bss.

The GNU linker has an option --warn-common which will diagnose the
merging of symbols in the common section.

So if you compile with:

gcc -Wl,--warn-common

the link succeeds, but you get a diagnostic.

Interesting. I did not know that option, maybe it should
be make the default?

Maybe the compiler itself can be coaxed into not doing the common
allocation in the first place. Aha, yes, the -fno-common option!

gcc -fno-common ...

OK.

Now the tentative definitions behave just like normal definitions, and
the link fails.

This is what C says: by the end of a translation unit, a tentative
definition becomes a fully fledged definition, is if with a zero
initializer. It does not remain some kind of second-class citizen.

But most linkers do not use that in their default state, as you have
seen. I think this is a flaw in the language. It should specifically
forbid that.
It's somewhat braindamaged that -fno-common isn't the default.
Agreed!

The
backward compatibility behavior should be explicitly requested with -
fcommon. Uninitialized definitions should go into .bss by default,
not .comm.

I'm going to patch this in the Linux distro that I maintain, to see
what breaks. I'm guessing that quite a few things, because any time a
programmer forgets to use ``extern'' in a header file declaration, and
include the header in two or more translation unit, you're going to
run into this.

It would be reasonable for -ansi -pedantic to imply -fno-common.

I think that the language should specify this. It is a flaw of the
language.
 
J

jacob navia

Dann Corbit wrote:

[snip example of lint]
P.S.
There are plenty of instances of undefined behavior not caught by compilers.
P.P.S.
I do agree that it would be nice if compilers were omniscient (or closer
than they are today).

You are right about lint. It is a useful tool. But the problem is in the
language, and specifically in the language standard. It doesn't specify
this, and allows this behavior.

This should be corrected at the language level, in my opinion.
 
J

jacob navia

Flash said:
jacob navia wrote, On 26/03/08 16:21:

On some implementations. On others it produces an error. It would be
more useful to simply tell people how to get there implementation to
produce an error for it. The implementations that I know for a fact will
produce an error are gcc/GNU ld under Linux when given specific options,
I believe you can get the same behaviour on AIX and SCO.

I think that this is a flaw of the language specifications. This should
be forbidden. But somehow the standards left this out for political
(or whatever) reasons. It is a mistake.

Can you name an implementation that produces an error (without
any extra obscure options) ?
It does not need masses of information about linkers to discus it and
the problem is not specific to C.

Well, I wanted to explain linking and the associated problems.
This is a group about C and I do not see C without the link
step, sorry (C interpreters are not the main usage of C)
Try posting it to somewhere it is topical such as comp.programming. Are
you fundamentally unable to understand the concept of topicality or you
simply trolling?

To say that this essential step of all C programs is "Off topic"
is an abomination really. Even the C standard mentions the linker
so please...
 
J

jacob navia

This is one of the many good reason to use lint. And an area where C+
+ is arguably a "better C" than C.


Why not c hanged it and specify the linker model correctly?
 
L

lawrence.jones

jacob navia said:
You are right about lint. It is a useful tool. But the problem is in the
language, and specifically in the language standard. It doesn't specify
this, and allows this behavior.

No, it doesn't, it tars and feathers it as "undefined behavior", which
is hardly allowing it. It just doesn't require the compiler to diagnose
it (since it can't with separate compilation) and it can't require the
linker to diagnose it since that's out of scope. (On most systems, the
linker is a separate product, not tied to any particular language. And
the choice of which linkage model to use is frequently affected by
inter-language compatibility concerns.)

-Larry Jones

Even if lives DID hang in the balance, it would depend on whose they were.
-- Calvin
 
F

Flash Gordon

jacob navia wrote, On 26/03/08 20:14:
I think that this is a flaw of the language specifications. This should
be forbidden. But somehow the standards left this out for political
(or whatever) reasons. It is a mistake.

Well, changes to the language specification belong in comp.std.c, but in
any case it does not need going in to details about the linker.
Can you name an implementation that produces an error (without
any extra obscure options) ?

Define an obscure option. However, I believe the TI TMS320C2xx
compiler/assembler/linker would qualify since it does not have (as far
as I remember or can see in the documentation) a common section.
Well, I wanted to explain linking and the associated problems.
This is a group about C and I do not see C without the link
step, sorry (C interpreters are not the main usage of C)

The details you provide are not needed to discus the issue and are not
universally correct even if you ignore interpreters.
To say that this essential step of all C programs is "Off topic"
is an abomination really. Even the C standard mentions the linker
so please...

The level of implementation specific detail you are going in to is
totally inappropriate for here. The C standard does not require a lot of
what you describe, and indeed by changing one option on Linux, AIX or
SCO I radically changed the behaviour so that one problem you talk about
goes away. On other implementations it is even further away from your
description.
 
J

jacob navia

Flash said:
The level of implementation specific detail you are going in to is
totally inappropriate for here. The C standard does not require a lot of
what you describe, and indeed by changing one option on Linux, AIX or
SCO I radically changed the behaviour so that one problem you talk about
goes away. On other implementations it is even further away from your
description.

I have a different view of my trade. I think a programmer
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,755
Messages
2,569,536
Members
45,009
Latest member
GidgetGamb

Latest Threads

Top