Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 02:54:56PM -0400, David Michael wrote: > >> Yes, the compiler refuses to run by default when a "-L" option occurs >> after a source/object file. It tries to interpret it as another file >> name and fails. > > Yeah, I think I have seen similar behavior before, but it has been long > enough that I no longer remember the compiler in use. > >> I believe I can work around the error with an "export _C89_CCMODE=1", >> but I thought I'd send the patch since this is the only occurrence of >> the problem, and the argument order is inconsistent with other linker >> commands in the file. > > I don't think working around it makes sense. That would fix your case, > but nobody else's (though given how long it has been that way without > complaints, I suspect any other compilers this picky may have died off). I think you meant s/nobody else's/breaks &/; With that, I agree with your assessment. The diff itself is probably fine as-is (I didn't look at it for more than 10 seconds, though ;-). And I agree that it needs to be better explained. >> Do you want me to resend the patch and reference the IBM documentation >> in the message? > > I don't think you need to. More interesting than documentation is the > real-world breakage you experienced and the analysis of the situation. > I'd be fine taking the patch as-is, or if changing anything, mentioning > the failure mode in the commit message. > > -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html