Dave Tweed wrote...

>davedilatush@comcast.net (Dave Dilatush) wrote:
>> Am I being too picky (or clueless) here?  I would have expected
>> LINK30 to bitch about the duplicate symbol definition, at least
>> with a warning (and an advisory about which of the duplicate
>> definitions it was using), if not a fatal error.
>
>No, that's fairly standard linker behavior -- the libraries are searched
>after all the explicit modules have been linked, to satisfy any outstanding
>undefined symbols. This lets you easily substitute a customized routine
>for a library function without having to modify the library itself.

OK, thanks; I can see the rationale for that, even though it
opens the door to unintentional mischief.  Would have been nice
to have some warning from the linker, though...

Dave D.

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