From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giorgos Keramidas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RFC: Support for FreeBSD/amd64 Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:35:45 +0300 Message-ID: <20051029183545.GA7351@flame.pc> References: <20051026235224.GA55408@flame.pc> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1130611058 15599 80.91.229.2 (29 Oct 2005 18:37:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, ich@frank-schmitt.net Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 29 20:37:27 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EVvYt-0002th-3h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:36:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EVvYs-0003wO-Jr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:36:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EVvYj-0003w5-3T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:36:05 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EVvYf-0003up-M7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:36:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EVvYf-0003uk-H7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:36:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.76.39.13] (helo=mail.vivodinet.gr) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EVvYe-0006aI-U3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:36:01 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 3973 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2005 18:35:56 -0000 Original-Received: from dslcustomer-222-89.vivodi.gr (HELO flame.pc) (83.171.222.89) by 0 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2005 18:35:56 -0000 Original-Received: from flame.pc (flame [127.0.0.1]) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j9TIZlRA007375; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:35:47 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Original-Received: (from keramida@localhost) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j9TIZlVx007374; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:35:47 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Original-To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:45095 Archived-At: On 2005-10-29 12:07, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >Richard M. Stallman wrote: >>> Yes, and they both are almost certainly needed. The reason is that >>> some functions in libgcc.a call functions from libc.a, and some >>> libc.a functions need functions from libgcc.a. Since most versions >>> of ld are one-pass linkers, you need to mention -lgcc twice, or else >>> risk getting unresolved externals. >> >> Someone should add a comment above that line >> to explain this. > > I don't object to such a comment, of course, but I thought this > was common knowledge. E.g., anyone who has ever invoked GCC > with the -v option to build a C program already knows that GCC > mentions -lgcc twice on the linker's command line. The original suggestion for a comment was triggered from my own comment that the duplicate -lgcc was probably intentional, but I didn't know the reason. Now I know the answer, but it may still be worth to document it near the relevant part of the source ;-) - Giorgos