Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: six-character extern id limit Summary: was Re: "Numerical Recipes in C" is nonport[truncated] Message-ID: <4003@bsu-cs.UUCP> Date: 18 Sep 88 17:02:29 GMT References: <5162@hoptoad.uucp> <225800069@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <8507@smoke.ARPA> <3981@bsu-cs.UUCP> <1988Sep17.212624.8858@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana Lines: 14 I said that I thought Doug Gwyn exaggerated in saying that "many" C implementors were not in a position to improve the linker that would "of necessity" be used with the output from their compiler. The context was a discussion of ANSI's guaranteeing no more than 6 significant characters in external names. Both Doug Gwyn and Henry Spencer disagree. But although I have been following this newsgroup for some time, I don't recall any specific cases being described of linkers that can't handle more than 6-character externals and that will of necessity be used to link C code. Are there more than just a few? (Remember, we're talking about a 6-character limit, not 7 or 8, which are more common.) -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP:!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi