> "Richard" == Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:04:15PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>> Fine, but are GCC *users* expected to search the GCC list
>> archives?
Richard> If they want to know the answer to "why", as opposed to
Richard> being sat
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:04:15PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> Fine, but are GCC *users* expected to search the GCC list archives?
If they want to know the answer to "why", as opposed to being
satisfied with "don't do that", then yes.
r~
> "Richard" == Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:32:51AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>> What surprises me is that it's normally ok to mix static and
>> shared libs, but not here. And the message is utterly
>> uninformative about what is wrong
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:32:51AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> What surprises me is that it's normally ok to mix static and shared
> libs, but not here. And the message is utterly uninformative about
> what is wrong or why the restriction exists.
It's been explained in detail many times before se
> "Sam" == Sam Lauber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The documentation for -fvisibility=hidden suggets that this
>> switch is > useful for shared libraries, to make things smaller
>> and faster. It > doesn't seem to be appropriate for object
>> libraries.
>> It's done *exactly* so tha
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:12:09AM +0100, Sam Lauber wrote:
> I don't know about you, but forcing a link failure in good
> code just because someone screwed up GCC configuration is
> probably the of the most worst compiler hacker's sins.
But it IS NOT GOOD CODE! That's the whole point.
Whateve
> > The documentation for -fvisibility=hidden suggets that this switch is
> > useful for shared libraries, to make things smaller and faster. It
> > doesn't seem to be appropriate for object libraries.
> It's done *exactly* so that we catch this bug in your configury.
I don't know about you, but
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 05:33:21PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> The documentation for -fvisibility=hidden suggets that this switch is
> useful for shared libraries, to make things smaller and faster. It
> doesn't seem to be appropriate for object libraries.
It's done *exactly* so that we catch th
> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Daniel> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 05:33:21PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>> I ran into link errors complaining about references to hidden
>> symbol _Unwind_GetIP from a DSO.
>>
>> It turns out unwind-dw2.c is compiled with -fvisibil
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 05:33:21PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> I ran into link errors complaining about references to hidden symbol
> _Unwind_GetIP from a DSO.
>
> It turns out unwind-dw2.c is compiled with -fvisibility=hidden for the
> static library case (but not for the shared library case).
>
On May 13, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
I ran into link errors complaining about references to hidden symbol
_Unwind_GetIP from a DSO.
It turns out unwind-dw2.c is compiled with -fvisibility=hidden for the
static library case (but not for the shared library case).
In my link, I was using th
11 matches
Mail list logo
