https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24613
Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2019-06-04
CC| |nickc at redhat dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> ---
Hi Dilyan,
> ld.bfd --help prints for the same
> --no-undefined Do not allow unresolved references in object
> files
> -z defs Report unresolved symbols in object files
>
> which suggests, that the two directives do different things.
And indeed this is true. The --no-undefined option has slightly
different semantics to -z defs. In particular if the --warn-unresolved-symbols
option has been specified earlier in the list of linker command
line options, then the --no-undefined option will only generate
a warning, rather than an error. The -z defs option however will
always generate an error, even if --warn-unresolved-symbols has
been enabled.
For gold however, this situation is subtly different. With gold
the -z defs option is affected by the --warn-unresolved-symbols
option, so -z defs and --no-undefined are the same option.
So in theory we ought to change one of the linkers so that the behaviour
matches the other. In practice however I think that this would be a bad
idea as it is bound to cause friction with users who do not like the change.
So instead I think that it would be best to clarify the --help output.
What do you think of the following ?
ld.bfd
--no-undefined Report unresolved references in object files
-z defs Generate errors for unresolved references in object files
I am not 100% sure of the effects of ld.gold's options on non-object
files, so I am off a mind to leave its --help output alone.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
