Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>
> In any case, it might be possible, even though extremely unlikely and
> of very bad taste, that the symbols of liba that are pulled by libx
> depend on libb. In this case, omitting the first occurrence of -la
> would cause the symbols in libb to not be resolved.
>
well, whatever may come out of this, til then perfect legal link lines
will be exhausted because of (admitted stupid) limitations of sed and sh
and libtool working for the extremely unlikely case.
If libx takes symbols out of liba, that depend on libb, and libb depends
on liba and libx also depends on liba, then only libx can be
-no-undefined
and the block "-lx -la -lb -la" has to be taken as this. But that's not
what I was refering to. In my case at least liba and even libb are
-no-undefined,
so making it definit, that what you say happens.
Greetings, Stephan
--
As long as Linux remains a religion of freeware fanatics,
Microsoft have nothing to worry about.
By Michael Surkan, PC Week Online
