From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfgang Stukenbrock To: "Richard Stallman" Cc: gas2@cygnus.com Subject: Re: problems with ld from binutils 2.5.2l.20 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 03:43:00 -0000 Message-id: <199509121043.MAA22533@faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <199509112004.QAA14727@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-SW-Source: 1995/msg00166.html > > Support you run > ld -Lfoo -lfoo -Lbar -lbar > The proposed change appears to argue that the -Lbar should not apply > to the -lfoo. However, that only matters if foo/libfoo.a does not > exist. > > That is true. > > What this shows is that even if the order of options were not rearranged, > the -L feature is insufficient for controlling which libraries are used, > for the reason that it can only add to the end of the search list. > > So I guess we might as well not change this unless/until we also make > it powerful enough to alter the search list in more flexible ways. > I don't know of an urgent need to do that. > I don't think it will be a good idea to change this in any case, because some makefile rely on the fact, that all -L directives are scanned before any other processing is done. The ld would get incompartible to the standard semantics! -- Wolfgang Stukenbrock