leo@unipalm.uucp (E.J. Leoni-Smith) (03/14/91)
scott@stl.stc.co.uk (Mike Scott) writes: >They also suggested there may be a problem with the 3rd party library: >the distributors for this have so far remained silent. Thats because we like to get our facts straight before committing ourselves to the ether :-) >-- >Regards. Mike Scott STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK >scott@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!scott <or> >PSI%234237100122::SCOTT phone +44-279-429531 xtn 3133.
scott@stl.stc.co.uk (Mike Scott) (03/20/91)
In the referenced article leo@unipalm.uucp (E.J. Leoni-Smith) writes: >scott@stl.stc.co.uk (Mike Scott) writes: > >>They also suggested there may be a problem with the 3rd party library: >>the distributors for this have so far remained silent. > >Thats because we like to get our facts straight before committing >ourselves to the ether :-) Laudable, but it would be useful to know when you're thinking about it :-). I did in fact hear from them shortly after my posting. Anyway, I've had comments from several people about the problem, and I'm grateful to them (I think I've acknowledged all, but we've had a couple of mail problems so replies may have been lost). The problem linker message apparently appears when an 'extern' directive appears in one module within the scope of a 'segment' directive: the linker then complains if the corresponding definition doesn't lie in the same segment - it's not clear whether it's fatal or not - opinions differ. I'm still not sure how this relates to the ftp pc/tcp and microsoft libraries: I am convinced it's not a problem due to my code: except possibly that the sheer size of it has moved things to different segments compared to smaller test programs. I still await a solution :-( -- Regards. Mike Scott STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK scott@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!scott <or> PSI%234237100122::SCOTT phone +44-279-429531 xtn 3133.