This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: [ghudson@MIT.EDU: Re: -Xlinker and LDFLAGS]

On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 12:18:29AM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On 12-Jan-2001, Phil Edwards <> wrote:
> Sorry, what I meant was this:
> 	I don't see how that helps, since `-Wl,-R' is no more portable than `-R',
> 	isn't it?                          ^^^^^^
> (I thought this would be understood from the context, but clearly not.)

Oh, I see what you mean now.

I think it helps just because of this:  certain platforms will have an
-R-accepting driver and others won't.  Reminding the user of a portable
linker hook will let them use -Wl,-R on those platforms where it's accepted
and -Wl,-whatever on the others.  But many people may not even know that -Wl
exists.  If we accept and pass -R on the platforms which use it, users might
believe that's the correct thing to do, and come to expect us to translate
-R into the correct linker option for those linkers which don't use it.

That was somewhat rambling; I'm probably not making a lot of sense.  :-)

Alexandre and others have convinced me that my first proposal was not
the best solution, but I feel that the current state still needs *some*
kind of fixing.

(I don't know how we ended up with both "-Xlinker" and "-Wl".  Why 'W'?)

pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.

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