On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:39:09 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > 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. Only now had a bit of time to put your advice into practice and it worked. You were absolutely right! Thank you for your time, Ian!
