Hi all,

One more comment about the ALTFILE proposal...

I've heard from a couple of people (including Steve Cooper) that
they thought that it's being suggested because the gcc compiler
builds .o files (object code) that file a filecode of 0, instead
of a filecode of NMOBJ...and...
the LINKEDIT program emits a warning when it encounters
such a file (even though it can tell that the file is indeed a
valid object file, and continues to use it correctly).

Thus, these people suggest that the ALTFILE command is being
proposed so it can be used as a "post-gcc / pre-LINKEDIT" command
to fix a LINKEDIT bug.

THIS IS THE ABSOLUTELY WRONG THING TO DO!

FIX THE DAMN PROBLEM IN THE LINKEDIT PROGRAM!

There...hope I got your attention :)

Has any user requested this because gcc puts out .o files with
a filecode 0?  Or, have they all simply complained about the
LINKEDIT warning?  I know a number of users who complain about the
warning...and none whatsoever who complain that the filecode is 0.

The ALTFILE "solution" does *NOT* provide a good or total solution
to the LINKEDIT warning bug:

  1) you shouldn't have to change other applications (gcc in this case,
     but other future ones possibly) just to get rid of a useless
     warning;

  2) the ALTFILE solution won't solve the LINKEDIT problem for files
     that are mounted via NFS (or other file system mount points in
     the future)   ...and that's an important consideration, as people
     move to NFS and other networked file systems!

  3) we *have* solutions for this (MPEX, FILECODE utility (see below)).

And, as I said: boy, does Jeff have better things to spend his time on!
This is simply and plainly an unmitigated waste of Jeff's precious time!

You want a simple (and free) filecode changing utility?  Ok...go to
http://www.allegro.com/software/
and search for "FILECODE".

--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html