Re: gold patch committed: Skip incompatible objects

[Michael Hennebry <hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu>]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> Michael Hennebry <hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> writes:
>
>>> ...                          The only time that an incorrect -L option
>>> would be a problem in this way would be if you have multiple libraries
>>> with the same name, and you are picking up the wrong one because a -L
>>> option was missed.  That does not seem like a common case to me.
>>
>> Or I don't pick up either and it fails to link.
>
> But the linker already gives an error if it can't find any library to
> match a -l option.

Clearly helpful,
but it doesn't say where said library was supposed to be.
If one is drowning in a sea of libraries
and directories one doesn't understand,
the answer isn't necessarily obvious.
Even if it should be, a clear statement that a directory is missing
could reduce the workload of an already over-stressed brain.
Automatic tools are better than grunge work.

>>> I wouldn't object to optionally warning about missing -L directories,
>>> but I don't think it should be the default behaviour, and I doubt I will
>>> bother to write such a patch myself.
>>
>> Perhaps it could be implied by --verbose.
>
> Sure, or --trace, I suppose.

Preferably and --trace.
Someone floundering is more likely to think of --verbose.

-- 
Michael   hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"Pessimist: The glass is half empty.
Optimist:   The glass is half full.
Engineer:   The glass is twice as big as it needs to be."