On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Miguel Guedes <miguel.a.guedes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I take it you don't think there's anything wrong with GCC? Is the > different behaviour between GCC and clang expected in this case? OK, I looked a bit closer, and I see the problem. You are listing the -l options before the .o files. With GCC, that means that the -l options are effectively ignored. I guess clang must rearrange the -l options in that case, although I don't know how that could work reliably while preserving Unix linking semantics. Move your -l options after your .o files. Ian
