From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Henderson To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Adding --skip-mismatch option to ld Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:00:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990607163551.B11123@cygnus.com> References: <19990604171207.W949@mff.cuni.cz> <19990607120530.A13793@cygnus.com> <19990608001452.O949@mff.cuni.cz> <19990608001452.O949@mff.cuni.cz> X-SW-Source: 1999-q2/msg00171.html On Tue, Jun 08, 1999 at 12:14:52AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > In such a case, what would it do if --no-warn-mismatch is specified? > Should it stop skipping the libraries and choose the first one in the search > path, or should it continue skipping incompatible libraries, in which case > if the user wanted to link against an incompatible library, he'd have to > specify its full name including path? My thinking is that the only way to link against an incompatible library is to include it explicitly instead of by `-l'. > I don't know much about what are people using --no-warn-mismatch for and > what tasks are they solving by it, so I cannot come to conclusion about the > above question easily myself. The only thing that even remotely comes to mind is a hetrogenous multi-cpu embedded system thing, wherein you're linking code for each of the processors into a single rom image. I have no idea whether this would actually work or not with just --no-warn-mismatch. > I'd be very happy if this skipping on mismatch was the default mode of > operation, just thought it would have lower chance of getting accepted. I have no problem with it. I'm interested in hearing Ian's thoughts. r~