This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Should we allow -static libfoo.so?

To: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
Subject: Re: Should we allow -static libfoo.so?
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 20:15:23 -0700
Cc: binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <20010509181557.B1775@lucon.org> <200105100128.VAA14785@envy.delorie.com> <20010509184711.A2330@lucon.org> <200105100149.VAA14932@envy.delorie.com>

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:49:08PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > The problem is the executable won't work right under ELF even if you
> > manage to generate such an executable.
> 
> Ah.  Still, I think if the user explicitly wants a dso, they should
> get something that works using the dso.

Never mind. I will fix the linker :-).


H.J.

References:
- Should we allow -static libfoo.so?
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: Should we allow -static libfoo.so?
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: Should we allow -static libfoo.so?
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: Should we allow -static libfoo.so?
  - From: DJ Delorie

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]