Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007-05-10, Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've seen some of those patches, and they're ugly workarounds to > --as-needed being broken. They should not be needed, if the flag > weren't broken.
While i recognize the fact, that --as-needed doesn't (and probably never will) catch up with some of it's use cases, i see no point in denying a "fix" for a broken --as-needed, even if it's not against the ld or gcc codebase. > And how easy it is to overlook such a message? In a huge batch build? > Is this also mentioned where the extra flags are documented > (or "documented")? The message will use elog, which is user configurable and some of our users have it mail them the output. In one case, namely the paludis package manager, elog messages get shown at the end of the complete batch build. In every case, the user gets a log file with the messages the package emitted. The use flags will have a (unsupported upstream) added to their description. -- Regards, Matti Bickel Encrypted/Signed Email preferred
pgp9HIhLcPS6j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
