>well, you may do that, but it doesn't make it so. the linker has much less information to go on than the compiler - basically (depending on how you compiled) m

>well, you may do that, but it doesn't make it so. the linker has much less information to go on than the compiler - basically (depending on how you compiled) machine code. actually, the GNU linker does quite a good job, given what it has to work with. but it was their decision to split the tools like that, wasn't it? nothing technically prevents you to model it in such a way that you can have access to the data you need, right? You probably don't even need to have linker at all. >> Other language (compilers) do better. >a language is not a compiler I wrote compiler in parenthesis. Also, since "language" has two definitions 1. syntax 2. whole ecosystem Then it is valid either way