The Linker Is not a Magical Program
Depressingly often, the view a programmer has of the process of going from source code to an executable is:
1. Edit source code 2. Compile source code into object files 3. Something magical happens 4. Run executable
Step 3 is, of course, the linking step. Why would I say such an outrageous thing? I've been doing tech support for decades, and I get the following questions again and again:
1. The linker says "abc" is an unresolved symbol. 2. The linker says "def" is defined more than once. 3. Why is my executable so large?
Followed by "what do I do now" usually with the words "seems to" and "somehow" mixed in. It's the "seems to" and "somehow" that indicate that the linking process is viewed as a magical process, presumably understandable by only wizards and warlocks. The process of compiling does not elicit these kinds of phrases, implying that programmers generally understand how compilers work, or at least what they do.
A linker is a very stupid, pedestrian, straightforward program. All it does is concatenate together the code and data sections of the object files, connect the the references to symbols with their definitions, pull unresolved symbols out of the library, and write out an executable. That's it! No spells! No magic! The tedium in writing a linker is usually all about decoding and generating the usually ridiculously over-complicated file formats, but that doesn't change the essential nature of a linker.