This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Can LD give warnings about the non-static functions defined but never used explicitly?

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
Cc: Pan ruochen <panruochen at gmail dot com>, Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, Jonathan Adamczewski <jadamcze at utas dot edu dot au>, David Daney <ddaney at caviumnetworks dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:19:31 +0100
Subject: Re: Can LD give warnings about the non-static functions defined but never used explicitly?
References: <af0faace0811232319n6e6789e5t6cc39ff5be836ed4@mail.gmail.com> <af0faace0811261837r7b936540jd0bc82dee352b543@mail.gmail.com> <492E6E37.3010609@redhat.com>

> No, that information is generated by the --print-gc-sections linker
> command line switch.

Look into the "Discarded input sections" section of the map file...

-- 
Eric Botcazou

References:
- Can LD give warnings about the non-static functions defined but never used explicitly?
  - From: Pan ruochen
- Re: Can LD give warnings about the non-static functions defined but never used explicitly?
  - From: Pan ruochen
- Re: Can LD give warnings about the non-static functions defined but never used explicitly?
  - From: Nick Clifton

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