This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: -Wl,<options> mechanism


Tal Agmon wrote:
I'm using GCC version 3.3.2, the target is i686-pc-linux-gnu.
It seems that the -Wl,<options> command option is not working correctly :

It is hard to understand what you are complaining about. Your message is not very clear. Please give an example.


Gcc does attempt to preserve the order of options as much as possible, but since there are multiple ways of specifying options on command lines and via specs, we can't always ensure this.

Note that some linker options are library specific and may come in pairs. So if someone specifies
-Wl,-Bsymbolic foo.so -Wl,-Bdynamic bar.so
then we must preserve the order of these four options to get the right affect. There is a complication here though because foo.so is not an option, it is a file name. So in order to get this right, we treat linker options similarly to how we treat filenames, to ensure that their relative order does not change.


This is an issue that does not apply to preprocessor or assembler options, because we do not support the ability to turn on different options for different preprocessor/assembler input files. Because of this, we can not necessarily make linker options work the same way as preprocessor/assembler options.

Perhaps this could be improved by treating linker input files as if they were options instead of the other way around, but it isn't clear if this helps you.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]