[skaller] > Ouch.. main in a library .. well, actually that's an interesting idea > you describe .. but .. (lol): Right, there's no inherent reason main can't go in a library, same as any other global function or variable. > I don't want to do that because it makes sense only if there is > really a 'main' main (lol). I mean, if there is a default main. Oh, I didn't mean to imply you couldn't have more than one of these libraries. Same as you're planning to perhaps have more than one object file. It's really the same thing, but I think it makes life easier for people doing manual linking to use /usr/lib/libfoo.a rather than /usr/lib/foo.o or /usr/lib/felix/rtl/foo.o or what have you. The difference is being able to say "-lfoo" on the link line rather than having to supply the complete pathname. > It might confuse a client using this: > > g++ -lrtl mymain.o mycode.o > > usually; providing their own 'main()' function in 'mymain.o', > if they accidently wrote: > > g++ -lrtl mycode.o That's really stretching it. When was the last time you accidentally forgot an object file on a link line? When was the last time you accidentally forgot the object file with your program's main entry point? Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature