Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:23:52 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Where does gcc -o foo make foo.exe
In-Reply-To: <3A6DAB0C.21140.9BA68D@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010124102220.25819R@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Mark E. wrote:

> I'll put the function in write.c and also call it from _write.c.

I'd say, make it the other way around: programs which only use
`_write' shouldn't be forced to link in write.c.  By contrast, `write'
always causes _write.c to be linked in.