🚀 go-pugleaf

From:  Doug Gwyn <gwyn@smoke.brl.mil>

In article <11187@cs.utexas.edu> From:  mwette@csi.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Matt Wette)
>I didn't see "ld" in your posting  Did you forget it or is there really
>no POSIX spec for "ld".   If there is, I would be interested to know if
>"ld -A" (loading to an executing program) will be in the spec.

I sure hope not!  It would be really dumb for POSIX to specify facilities
that run so much against existing practice that the ability to implement
them is in doubt.

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 33

From:  willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox)

I'm not sure how these responses got into the newsgroup.  I intended
to send my original response directly to the guy who asked for a list
of utilities.  I didn't think I was posting it to the world.  Ah, well.

[ See my followup about this.  -mod ]

In article <11187@cs.utexas.edu> mwette@csi.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Matt Wette) writes:

>I didn't see "ld" in your posting  Did you forget it or is there really
>no POSIX spec for "ld".   If there is, I would be interested to know if
>"ld -A" (loading to an executing program) will be in the spec.

No, there is no "ld" in POSIX.2.  You link a bunch of objects using
"c89 [-o file] a.o b.o ...".

The details of a raw "ld" were considered too implementation-specific
for a standard.

David

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 37

From:  henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>I didn't see "ld" in your posting  Did you forget it or is there really
>no POSIX spec for "ld".   If there is, I would be interested to know if
>"ld -A" (loading to an executing program) will be in the spec.

Almost everyone usually does "ld" by invoking "cc", as the precise set
of appropriate "ld" options for a normal program tends to be system-specific.
I would guess that 1003.2 simply didn't think it was worth adding "ld"
given this.

The ability to do "ld -A" (or rather, to do anything useful with the
result) is *very* system-specific.

                                         Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                          henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry


Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 34

From: jsq@usenix.org (John S. Quarterman)

In article <435@usenix.ORG> From: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox)
>I'm not sure how these responses got into the newsgroup.  I intended
>to send my original response directly to the guy who asked for a list
>of utilities.  I didn't think I was posting it to the world.  Ah, well.

A while back, there was a chronic problem with people on the mailing list,
	std-unix@uunet.uu.net
not being able to figure out how to post messages or to send comments
to the moderator.  There were cases of people replying to the original
submittor in attempts to unsubscribe.  So I added a
	Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
line to force replies back to the list submission address.  This worked
fine for quite a while.

While I was gone last week, there was a spate of people reading the newsgroup,
	comp.std.unix
and attempting to respond to the submittor of an article.  Their messages
got sent to the moderator, because of the Reply-To: line.  This has
occasionally happened before, but there were many more than usual last
week, and the guest moderator wasn't expecting them.

So, I'm going to try separating the headers in the mailing list and in
the newsgroup.  I've already removed the
	Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
line from the newsgroup articles, and am adding a hack to put it back
in the mailing list as it's gatewayed from the newsgroup.  We'll see
how that works.  I predict somebody will complain....

John S. Quarterman, moderator, comp.std.unix and std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 39