That's good to know. Thank you and Christopher for the information
marco atzeri wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 6:01 AM, wrote:
> >
> >
> > Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > It isn't incredibly difficult to understand: Some poorly written
> > > makefiles
> > > put a -lib befo
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 6:01 AM, wrote:
>
>
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>
> >
> > It isn't incredibly difficult to understand: Some poorly written makefiles
> > put a -lib before the object files which rely on them. That works by
> > coincidence in Linux but doesn't work on Windows. So
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>
> It isn't incredibly difficult to understand: Some poorly written makefiles
> put a -lib before the object files which rely on them. That works by
> coincidence in Linux but doesn't work on Windows. So put the -libraries
> last.
> --
What is the basis for t
Thanks for summing up the exact problem and solution.
I apprecaite it.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:51:05PM +0900, wynfi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >With the current set of gcc and loader, does there still exist the
> >diffence that makes porting GNU Linux programs a challeng
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:51:05PM +0900, wynfi...@gmail.com wrote:
>With the current set of gcc and loader, does there still exist the
>diffence that makes porting GNU Linux programs a challenge sometimes.
>I haven't build for a while, but I recall that the order of libraries
>in a ? linking proc
With the current set of gcc and loader, does there still exist the diffence
that makes porting GNU Linux programs a challenge sometimes. I haven't build
for a while, but I recall that the order of libraries in a ? linking process on
the command line wouldn't work as they do in on GNU Linux sys
6 matches
Mail list logo
