https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99896
Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> > With g++, we have instead:
> > ...
> > collect2 ... main.o foo.o -lpcre2-posix ...
> > ...
>
> It isn't dropped, it's moved to the end:
>
> main.o foo.o -lpcre2-posix -lstdc++ -lm -lc -lgcc_s -lgcc -lc -lgcc_s -lgcc
>
> If you need it before foo.o then -Wl,-lc seems like the right workaround for
> me.
Workaround is the correct term here. The correct thing would be for g++ to not
reorder -l arguments. The similarity to -I is superficial: duplicated -l
arguments have meaning (with static archives for instance) and their position
in relation to object and source files matters. g++ can validly tack on
additional -l arguments to the end, and arguably also replace a lone -lc
argument that was originally at the end of the command line or implicit (e.g.
to inject its unwinder), but it shouldn't otherwise reorder such arguments.
I will of course agree that the issue that the added -lc "solves" is actually
a bug in the testcase (and gdb). But that should be immaterial here. At the
very least gcc and g++ should behave the same in this respect.
