It is ok to have undefined hidden symbols in a .o file

H . J . Lu hjl@valinux.com
Mon Jun 5 13:49:00 GMT 2000


On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 01:03:43PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.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
ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb.


-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)


More information about the Binutils mailing list