Is it faked?

That's really sad news. I only discovered his work 4 year ago and have read almost everything he wrote that's sci-fi. Not your typical author. I hope he awakes in a place where he can build a zepplin.

Town life is the middle way. I live in Cambridge, UK and its lovely. Its 10 mins on my bike to town and the same to work. My ride to work takes me across a couple of commons. If I want to go to the countryside that's 5 mins cycling away. I know people will say Cambridge is actually a city but its the size of a town. Its no bigger than where I was born in Macclesfield! Tried living in London and hated it. It took ages to get anywhere however you travelled.

I'm currently trying to get our code to link using VS8 or 2005. We are currently using VS7 or 2003. When I link I get a collection of the following messages. LIBCMT.lib(printf.obj) : error LNK2005: _printf already defined in libredir.obw LIBCMT.lib(calloc.obj) : error LNK2005: _calloc already defined in liballoc.obw LIBCMT.lib(realloc.obj) : error LNK2005: _realloc already defined in liballoc.obw LIBCMT.lib(vprintf.obj) : error LNK2005: _vprintf already defined in libredir.obw After these errors obviously the linking fails. The code I am linking is a collection of C and C++ code producing DLLs and EXEs. Bits of the system were written in the very early days of windows. So there we have our own code to do malloc, calloc, printf, etc. What I understand after spending hours reading Microsoft and this site is that prior to VS8 we were linking using the single threaded library libc.lib. Now this is no more and thus we have to use the multi-threaded libcmt.lib. This is the cause of the bother. The questions Now we are being forced to use the multi-threaded library libcmt.lib how do I stop it complaining about our own defined functions and let our software compile? The answer isn't obviously to get rid of our versions because our huge code base uses these functions instead of microsoft and in the case of printf does something special to the output. One oddity is that we have defined our own malloc and it doesn't whinge about that. Any help would be gratefully received. steven -- modified at 13:00 Thursday 24th May, 2007