It is ok to have undefined hidden symbols in a .o file
H . J . Lu
Mon Jun 5 13:49:00 GMT 2000
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 01:03:43PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <email@example.com> writes:
> > Where there are
> > 1. foo is undefined, hidden in bar.o
> > 2. foo is defined in foo.o.
> Yep, this must be possible.
> > both
> > # gcc -shared -o libfoo.so bar.o foo.o
> > # gcc -shared -o libfoo.so foo.o bar.o
> > should work. This patch fixes it. I'd like to check it in if it
> > is ok with everyone.
> Makes sense to me.
Thanks. I checked in my patch. I also checked some new testcases into
H.J. Lu (firstname.lastname@example.org)
More information about the Binutils