On Friday 10 May 2002 12:51 pm, Terry Lambert wrote:
= Mikhail Teterin wrote:
= > > > Is there a reason for it, or this just a not-yet-implemented
= > > > feature? It certainly seems like the latter -- why make the user
= > > > jump through all the sorting/reordering hoops?
= >
= > > Generally, this won't be necessary for properly organized code. The
= > > code in question is organized by software layering, right, so all you
= > > have to do is link the libraries in order?
= >
= > In other words, your answer is: "This just a not-yet-implemented feature"?

= Actually, it's "it would not be necessary, if your code were
= organized to best common practices principles".

It is not my code.

= Or more roughly "It's not a feature".

= > > > = You might also want to consider using -L<path> -l<library>,
= > > > = instead of trying to link .a's directly.
= > > >
= > > > What would this do?
= > >
= > > Make it all go through the library linking code, instead of the
= > > single object archive linking code. a ".a" file treated as an
= > > object is not the same as a library.
= >
= > What's the difference if all I have are the static libraries anyway?
= > I actually tried this, and had the exactly same list of allegedly
= > undefined symbols...

= You can add "-lxxx" again, and it will only pull in those things
= that are missing.

Thanks, this makes sense.

= ...
= For my information:  Why didn't you take John De Bowsky's advice to:
=       ld $objlist `lorder $liblist | tsort -q`

I tried that before I asked on the mailing list the first time. It
did reduce the number of the undefined symbols, but not to zero.

= ??? I pointed you at tsort myself, but didn't provide the full command
= line like John did because I wanted the pain to be high enough that
= you would fix it the right way (reorganzing your library link order
= and using ranlib -- ppointed you at that, too) instead of glueing over
= the problem.

It would probably be quite beneficial if you dropped this paternalistic
attitude. "Pain high enough"... Please...

= Or are you on a holy crusade to get tsort incorporated into ld, so
= that most of the time, it will take a lot longer to link, with exatly
= the same results, since all the code everywhere else on the system has
= already solved the link order problem the right way?

[The term "holy crusade" does not help either -- it is not even
paternalistic, just plain non-sense...]

Tsort is ALREADY incorporated into ld in some shape, because object
files on command line or within one .a CAN be misordered.

All I ask, is why the collections of object files provided by different
static libs are/can not be treated as one big collection.

= I have to say that, given a choice between "make world" taking several
= minutes longer and you not having to reorganize your code into logical
= component units, vs. it taking less time to do a make world, and one
= programmer having to *fix* their code, I have to pick you fixing your
= code.

Of course. Does not seem like it will come to this, however.

= Also, this is a tools problem, and the tools provide a way (even if
= it's ugly) to get the behaviour you want, with a single option before
= your objects, and another one after.

Hmm, no. The only reliable option is to either build a "library of all
libraries" or link the the object files into the executable directly.

This, BTW, shows how inconsistent the current situation is -- the linker
does not mind misordered object files, but is very picky about the order
of static libraries (shared ones are can be misordered too, AFAIK). I
don't see how one can sincerely defend its lack of what still appears
to be a missing feature.

= By "the tools people", I mean our linker vendor, the Free Software
= Foundation... not anyone in the FreeBSD Project.

Ok. Thanks for the pointer.

= FreeBSD itself is *incredibly* unlikely to make a local hack to the
= GNU toolchain to support what you want being automatic, since David
= O'Brien, Peter Wemm, and others have sweat *blood* in order to get
= FreeBSD over to as much of the standard toolchain as humanly possible.

Many thanks to them.


        Как, Вы разве без шпаги пришли?

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to