This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: LTO symtab sections vs. missing symbols (libcalls maybe?) and lto-plugin vs. COFF
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc\ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:11:56 -0700
- Subject: Re: LTO symtab sections vs. missing symbols (libcalls maybe?) and lto-plugin vs. COFF
- References: <4CB71AE3.10608@gmail.com>
Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com> writes:
> The consequence of this is that either there are going to be undefined
> symbols in the final executable, or the linker has to perform another round of
> library scanning. It occurred to me that the semantics of this might even not
> have been decided yet, since ELF platforms are perfectly happy with undefined
> symbols at final link time.
Only when linking dynamically, though. This suggests that your test
case should fail on ELF when linking with -static. If not, why not?
Ian