Re: Patchless modification of Lua source code

[Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@...>]

Am 24.11.18 um 03:19 schröbte Sean Conner:
>    No answer to my question though?

I'm not sure which question you mean, so I'll try to answer all 
questions I can find in your last message.


> I ask, what does "not defined in the
> current translation" mean to you?

Probably the same as you, with the exception that I think "current 
translation" refers to a single translation unit as in the descriptions 
of the other translation phases.
But then we do agree on the fact that unresolved external symbols may be 
looked up in a library. What we don't agree on is what is supposed to 
happen if a library contains an external symbol that already is defined 
somewhere else (either in a standalone translation unit or in a library).

> So, how do I interpret these results?

You answered this one yourself.

> So did I use two non-comformant compilers for this experiment 
> then?

Your compilers are probably fine. As soon as undefined behavior is 
involved (which I claim is the case if you link multiple external 
definitions), a compiler can do almost anything, and that includes 
ignoring some symbols from libraries if there are definitions for those 
symbols in other translation units.

>    -spc

Philipp