"Mark D. Baushke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know that gcc-2.7.2.1/gcc.c supports both -Wl and -Xlinker.
Thanks for checking that. That's old enough for me. I installed
this, in both gnulib and coreutils:
2006-01-20 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* lib-ignore.m4 (gl_IGNORE_UN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > It appears that -Xlinker is supported only by gcc, and -Wl by other
> > compilers too?
>
> Sorry, I had never heard of -Wl. Do you know whether GCC has
> supp
Quoting Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It appears that -Xlinker is supported only by gcc, and -Wl by other
> compilers too?
Sorry, I had never heard of -Wl. Do you know whether GCC has
supported -Wl for as long as it has supported -Xlinker? If so, I'll
just change lib-ignore to use -Wl rat
Hi Bruno,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:36:35PM CET:
>
> One more question about this macro: What is the difference between
> -Xlinker and -Wl (apart from the slightly different syntax)? libtool and
> config.rpath sometimes use -Wl to pass an option to the linker and never
> -Xl
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Stepping back from things a bit, I discovered a way to simplify
> lib-ignore so that it no longer needs to use ldd. Instead, it merely
> uses the '-z ignore' option if this works.
All the better.
One more question about this macro: What is the difference between
-Xlinker and
[ removing the bug-coreutils list, adding libtool-patches ]
* Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:07:50AM CET:
>
> And perhaps the ldd module itself isn't necessary any more, at least
> for now.
Given that it works on enough relevant systems, it would be useful in
Libtool's hardcode.test
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you use the new 'ldd' module, it
> - should work also when cross-compiling,
> - should be immune to changed addresses in the output of 'chatr',
> 'dump -H', 'elfdump -Dl', 'ldd', 'odump -Dl',
> - simply feels safer to use the appropriate comm
