From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Lance Taylor To: rth@cygnus.com Cc: jj@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz, binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Adding --skip-mismatch option to ld Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:00:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990609234359.3086.qmail@daffy.airs.com> References: <19990604171207.W949@mff.cuni.cz> <19990607120530.A13793@cygnus.com> <19990608213144.561.qmail@daffy.airs.com> <19990608204932.E7246@cygnus.com> <19990609041411.1632.qmail@daffy.airs.com> <19990609163754.V949@mff.cuni.cz> <19990609151538.2567.qmail@daffy.airs.com> <19990609205538.B949@mff.cuni.cz> <19990609225246.2849.qmail@daffy.airs.com> <19990609162034.A16899@cygnus.com> <19990609162034.A16899@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-q2/msg00204.html Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:20:34 -0700 From: Richard Henderson On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 06:52:46PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > If --skip-mismatch is the default, the linker finds an entirely > different libfoo.a later in the search path. The link succeeds, but > I'm using the wrong code. My changes aren't in there, and I can't > figure out why. I have a serious debugging problem ahead of me. Perhaps --skip-mismatch, while the default, also warns by default, to be supressed by --no-warn-mismatch (for masochists)? I could accept such a patch. However, I continue to believe that it is better to avoid increasing the confusion. Making the linker smarter often seems like a sensible approach, but my experience is that it tends to lead to unanticipated trouble. It's always better to have simple tools with transparent behaviour. There is a place for smart programs that try to guess what you mean, but not in the binutils. Ian