On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 11:33 +0100, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> 
> I rarely use MPLINK so I don't have any problem with it whatsoever.  
> I am simply saying that relying on undocumented features/side effects 
> of *any* toolset is dangerous.  i.e. unless the GPLINK docs say that 
> object files will be guaranteed to be linked in the order specified 
> on the command line (do they?), then the authors are under no 
> obligation to keep this functionality in future revisions.

I take your point.  BUT looking at the way the code works, it's hard to
imagine why this would ever happen.

> It also seems a little pointless when there are alternative methods 
> of achieving the same objectives that are always guaranteed to work.

Can we drop this thread now... Nothing anyone says is going to stop me
using my scheme.  If you don't like it I'm not forcing you to use it.  I
know the thinks that could go wrong but as far as I'm concerned it has
definite advantages over any other scheme I've seen proposed.   

YMMV.

Peter

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist