This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -no-undefined option
- From: Lin George <george4academic at yahoo dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:28:49 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: -no-undefined option
Thanks Ian buddy. I have post my question to binutils mail list now. Hope we have a happy discussion there. :-)
regards,
George
----- Original Message ----
From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
To: Lin George <george4academic@yahoo.com>
Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:33:57 PM
Subject: Re: -no-undefined option
Lin George <george4academic@yahoo.com> writes:
> Thanks Ian! In most cases, I do not notice people to add this option
> when building a shared library. I think it is high risk (when
> running), since if this option is not added, linker will never try
> to resolve whether the referred functions are implemented actually
> (exported) by other modules. Do you agree? Any comments?
Many shared libraries depend upon other shared libraries. Note that
by default the linker will warn about undefined symbols. If you use
-no-undefined, that warning will become an error.
If you want to change the default, please raise the issue on
binutils@sourceware.org.
> BTW: now I am wondering if this option is not added to linker when
> building a shared library, will linker do any sanity checking? I
> think in this situation, whether referred function is exported by
> other module is not checked. But what sanity points are checked in
> this situation? Thanks again.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this question. And it should probably
go to binutils@sourceware.org anyhow.
Ian
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com