This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Broken SO due to dropped dependencies
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Miguel Guedes <miguel dot a dot guedes at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:39:09 -0700
- Subject: Re: Broken SO due to dropped dependencies
- References: <kj44bb$plm$1 at ger dot gmane dot org> <CAKOQZ8wYCipwEUD5OW_7fhvx1QsXwAeUG6283HbpH2NxKfugsg at mail dot gmail dot com> <kj4a3q$f26$1 at ger dot gmane dot org>
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Miguel Guedes
<miguel.a.guedes@gmail.com> wrote:
> I take it you don't think there's anything wrong with GCC? Is the
> different behaviour between GCC and clang expected in this case?
OK, I looked a bit closer, and I see the problem. You are listing the
-l options before the .o files. With GCC, that means that the -l
options are effectively ignored. I guess clang must rearrange the -l
options in that case, although I don't know how that could work
reliably while preserving Unix linking semantics.
Move your -l options after your .o files.
Ian