On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:06 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> I can't think of any reason why adding those flags would cause this to
> happen. Indeed, I can't think of any reason why ld-linux.so would NOT
> be linked with your application before these flags were added. I would
> have thought that any ex
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 13:37 -0700, Kip Warner wrote:
> Another thing, I see the the libstdc++.so.6 and libgcc_s.so.1 removed
> from its dependencies according to objdump, but I did note the addition
> of a new one, ld-linux-x86-64.so.2. Do you think that will be a problem?
I can't think of any rea
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 10:45 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> I'm removing automake from this thread as I'm getting two copies of
> every mail. Hope no one minds.
No problem. I'll try to remember to do the same.
> This is because GCC has some of its internal functionality implemented
> in libraries, wh
