https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> --- (In reply to sguelton from comment #13) > I've been giving extra thoughts to the missing-symbol sub command. Why would > you pass the file where the missing symbol was found? Do you have any > specific scenario in mind? Originally it was because I was expecting the script to print out an error message if it could not help the user find the symbol, and that this would override the linker error message. Now that that has changed, I guess that there isn't really a need for the filename anymore. > I wonder if passing the list of libraries where > the symbols was looked for may help (like for checking if a library update > may bring the symbol with it) ? Sounds a bit complicated, but possible. It might also be useful to tell the script if there are any libraries that are on the command line, but which have now been fully scanned. Ie providing the ability for the script to tell the user that they need to move the library further along the command line, or to duplicate it, or something like that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
