On Wednesday 18 March 2009 03:00:07 Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Mike Frysinger wrote on Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 06:22:18AM CET: > > in a project for a LD_PRELOAD module, i like to use -no-undefined because > > undefined symbols will not work in it at all. i would like to see a link > > error up front rather than random runtime failures. googling around > > shows patches from 6-8 years ago. they refer to an older glibc bug > > (which at this point makes it a bug on decade old systems) that should be > > accounted for, but otherwise there wasnt any response to the proposed > > patch. is there any real reason for Linux not supporting something so > > basic as -no-undefined ? especially considering it only needs one linker > > flag (-Wl,--no-undefined) ? > > IIRC lots of things would break on Linux if we used -Wl,--no-undefined. > I don't recall the details, but I'm sure glibc wasn't the only problem > child in this area.
rather than make it the default, i would expect the flag to only show up when people have explicitly done -no-undefined. the breakage there shouldnt be too bad right ? for my package, ive added my own linker check for -Wl,--no-undefined into my configure script > Before we do this, I'd like to see some real-world exposure of it, say, > using it to build the better part of a distribution or so. Running the > Libtool testsuite with it would be a good starter. :-) i dont have a problem running it on my Gentoo systems ... pretty easy to rebuild quite a bit of packages there but a patch would be needed first ... there's the previous one in the archives that was ported to libtool-1.5 ... -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
