Re: -no-undefined vs gcc 4.6.0

2011-03-19 Thread Vincent Torri
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, LRN wrote: On 19.03.2011 0:17, Vincent Torri wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, LRN wrote: On 18.03.2011 23:51, Vincent Torri wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, LRN wrote: Since gcc 4.6.0 it is no longer possible to use LDFLAGS=-no-undefined gcc now says something like this:

Re: -no-undefined vs gcc 4.6.0

2011-03-19 Thread Charles Wilson
On 3/19/2011 6:25 AM, LRN wrote: I expect to find a lot of libtool-using projects that will require such hacks or workarounds, because `unrecognized option '-no-undefined'' is very common. Ah, but actually -no-undefined should be added by the upstream maintainers, in Makefile.am, to

-no-undefined vs gcc 4.6.0

2011-03-18 Thread LRN
Since gcc 4.6.0 it is no longer possible to use LDFLAGS=-no-undefined gcc now says something like this: gcc.exe: error: unrecognized option '-no-undefined' Before 4.6.0 it was possible to do that, and gcc said only this: gcc.exe: unrecognized option '-no-undefined' That is, unrecognized option

Re: -no-undefined vs gcc 4.6.0

2011-03-18 Thread Vincent Torri
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, LRN wrote: Since gcc 4.6.0 it is no longer possible to use LDFLAGS=-no-undefined gcc now says something like this: gcc.exe: error: unrecognized option '-no-undefined' Before 4.6.0 it was possible to do that, and gcc said only this: gcc.exe: unrecognized option

Re: -no-undefined vs gcc 4.6.0

2011-03-18 Thread LRN
On 18.03.2011 23:51, Vincent Torri wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, LRN wrote: Since gcc 4.6.0 it is no longer possible to use LDFLAGS=-no-undefined gcc now says something like this: gcc.exe: error: unrecognized option '-no-undefined' Before 4.6.0 it was possible to do that, and gcc said only

Re: -no-undefined vs gcc 4.6.0

2011-03-18 Thread Vincent Torri
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, LRN wrote: On 18.03.2011 23:51, Vincent Torri wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, LRN wrote: Since gcc 4.6.0 it is no longer possible to use LDFLAGS=-no-undefined gcc now says something like this: gcc.exe: error: unrecognized option '-no-undefined' Before 4.6.0 it was