Broken SO due to dropped dependencies

[Ian Lance Taylor]

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