Hi, On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> > > Nope. Try it for yourself: > > Huh, indeed. IMHO that's inconsistent with the symbol resolution > > behaviour of GNU ld (only looking in level0 libs for symbols, not in those > > DT_NEEDED by them, unless --copy-dt-needed-entries is active), but so be > > it. > > I did the test with gcc so I was describing ld's behavior. Yes, in case it wasn't obvious I agreed with you, I just think ld's behaviour in this aspect is IMHO inconsistent with behaviour in a slightly related aspect. > Got a patch and would appreciate some feedback. Only tested on x86-64 so > far [1] so I would also appreciate testing on other targets (even i386). Looks good to me. Ciao, Michael. _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
