This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: It is ok to have undefined hidden symbols in a .o file
- To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: It is ok to have undefined hidden symbols in a .o file
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:48:49 -0700
- Cc: loewis at informatik dot hu-berlin dot de, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <20000605125844.A22433@valinux.com> <m3aegz7v4w.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 01:03:43PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com> writes:
>
> > Where there are
> >
> > 1. foo is undefined, hidden in bar.o
> > 2. foo is defined in foo.o.
>
> Yep, this must be possible.
>
> > both
> >
> > # gcc -shared -o libfoo.so bar.o foo.o
> > # gcc -shared -o libfoo.so foo.o bar.o
> >
> > should work. This patch fixes it. I'd like to check it in if it
> > is ok with everyone.
>
> Makes sense to me.
>
Thanks. I checked in my patch. I also checked some new testcases into
ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb.
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)