From: amn@hutcs.UUCP.UUCP
Subject: obsolete vs. removed from the library
Date: Sat, 14-Mar-87 11:03:51 EST [thread overview]
Date: Sat Mar 14 11:03:51 1987
Message-ID: <8703130014.AA01241@hutcs.UUCP> (raw)
According to LRM 10.1:6 a subprogram body is treated as a secondary
unit if the program library already contains a library unit (= a sub-
program declaration) that is a subprogram with the same name.
This means that to recompile a library subprogram the declaration
or context clauses of which have been changed one has to compile
a genuine subprogram specification without the corresponding body
as a separate compilation unit.
LRM 10.3:5 states that obsolete compilation units must be recompiled
unless they are no longer needed. I think this means you cannot
recompile a subprogram body if its specification is obsolete, as
the recompilation needs the specification.
I am not sure whether there is any need for having obsolete
compilation units in the library. I think that 10.3:5 means that
obsolete compilation units cannot be utilized. The only reason
to have obsolete compilation units in a program library could be
that the compilation library tools can decide which compilation
units need to be recompiled after an 'obsoleting' compilation.
Ari Mujunen
Helsinki University of Technology
(mcvax!penet!hut!amn, I suppose)
next reply other threads:[~1987-03-14 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1987-03-14 16:03 amn [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1987-03-08 7:02 obsolete vs. removed from the library Bryan
1987-03-11 22:29 ` John B. Goodenough
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox