Thanks Ian buddy. I have post my question to binutils mail list now. Hope we have a happy discussion there. :-) regards, George ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx> To: Lin George <george4academic@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:33:57 PM Subject: Re: -no-undefined option Lin George <george4academic@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thanks Ian! In most cases, I do not notice people to add this option > when building a shared library. I think it is high risk (when > running), since if this option is not added, linker will never try > to resolve whether the referred functions are implemented actually > (exported) by other modules. Do you agree? Any comments? Many shared libraries depend upon other shared libraries. Note that by default the linker will warn about undefined symbols. If you use -no-undefined, that warning will become an error. If you want to change the default, please raise the issue on binutils@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > BTW: now I am wondering if this option is not added to linker when > building a shared library, will linker do any sanity checking? I > think in this situation, whether referred function is exported by > other module is not checked. But what sanity points are checked in > this situation? Thanks again. I'm sorry, I don't understand this question. And it should probably go to binutils@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx anyhow. Ian ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
