This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Docs for --unresolved-symbols unclear?
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- To: Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs dot msu dot su>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:20:54 +0000
- Subject: Re: Docs for --unresolved-symbols unclear?
- References: <200312050930.05059.ghost@cs.msu.su>
Hi Vladimir,
> Now, I'm at loss again. This change removes statement that -Bdynamic
> implies --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all. But when I try my test case:
> with
>
> g++ a.cpp -Wl,-Bdynamic
>
> I get:
>
> a.cpp:6:2: warning: no newline at end of file
> /tmp/ccaT8qMm.o(.text+0x11): In function `main':
> : warning: undefined reference to `foo()'
>
> That is, I get warning, not error. Without, -Bdynamic, I get error, as
> expected. I'm using binutils 2.14.90.0.6-3 on Debian, so it might not be
> the most current version.
Hmm - I do not get this with the 2.14 sources I have here, but they
are probably slightly different from the Debian ones.
Anyway with the current mainline binutils sources the undefined symbol
in your test case will produce an error message, rather than a warning
message, even if -Bdynamic is specified. Hence I think that the
documentation is now correct.
> OTOH, ChangeLog does not mention any significant changes to
> -Bdynamic.
True - the ChangeLog entries are more general - talking about
unresolved symbols and shared libraries.
Cheers
Nick