This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
PATCH RFA: Document that order of -l option is significant
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 23 May 2007 08:48:10 -0700
- Subject: PATCH RFA: Document that order of -l option is significant
This minor documentation patch documents that the order of the -l
option is significant. This is already documented in the description
of the -l option itself; this adds a note to a paragraph which says
that there is no significant ordering to command line options.
Tested by building the documentation and looking at the info file and
the man page.
OK for mainline?
Ian
2007-05-23 Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
* doc/invoke.texi (Invoking GCC): Document that the order of the
-l option matters.
Index: gcc/doc/invoke.texi
===================================================================
--- gcc/doc/invoke.texi (revision 124930)
+++ gcc/doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -102,9 +102,10 @@ may @emph{not} be grouped: @option{-dr}
@cindex order of options
@cindex options, order
You can mix options and other arguments. For the most part, the order
-you use doesn't matter. Order does matter when you use several options
-of the same kind; for example, if you specify @option{-L} more than once,
-the directories are searched in the order specified.
+you use doesn't matter. Order does matter when you use several
+options of the same kind; for example, if you specify @option{-L} more
+than once, the directories are searched in the order specified. Also,
+the placement of the @option{-l} option is significant.
Many options have long names starting with @samp{-f} or with
@samp{-W}---for example,