https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24613
--- Comment #5 from dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot org <dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot org> --- The descriptions of --no-undefined talks about regular object files, while --allow-shlib-undefined is about shared libraries as opposed to regular object files. -z undefs is about regular object files, both from executable and shared library. As for -z ..., the documentation of the other noX and X options is together, consider joining there the documentation for nodefs and defs. Honestly when linking I do not see why shall we talk about regular object files. Linking two object files, when the first file contains unresolved symbols and the second file defines that symbols, deserves no warning. The documentation of -z defs and --no-undefined says that the inverse is -z undefs, but the documentation of -z undefs says only -z defs is the inverse. Please clarify how --no-undefined and --allow-shlib-undefined are related: is the second complete subset of the former? Write down the behavior of ld.gold, when the specifics about ld.bfd are mentioned. What is a non-symbolic shared library? -- 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
