Re: [Libsigcx-main] Re: [PATCH] libsigcx-0.6.4 build fixes for Cygwin, older libtools

[Andreas R. <a.r...@gm...>]

Steven Brown <sw...@uc...> writes:

> Andreas Rottmann wrote:
>
>> It seems I know nothing about what undefined sybols in shared
>> libraries are and what they mean. Do you know of any reference? I
>> looked up the --no-undefined ld option, but that didn't explain
>> much. I believe you, however, when you say that -no-undefined cannot
>> hurt and have applied your patch.
>
> As an example, say we have foo.c, bar.c, and main.c as follows:
>
[...]

>
> So, having -no-undefined in is really what 99.9% of folks intend,
> anyway, and is required for some platforms.  I'm really not sure who
> has a need for allowing undefined symbols, but I'd guess it'd be the
> low-level folks like those working on ld-linux.so, maybe the crt0
> stuff, etc..
>
>
Ok, I think I understand now. Thanks a lot for your extended explaination!

Cheers, Rotty
--=20
Andreas Rottmann         | Rotty@ICQ      | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.=
at
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B=
62
v2sw7MYChw5pr5OFma7u7Lw2m5g/l7Di6e6t5BSb7en6g3/5HZa2Xs6MSr1/2p7 hackerkey.c=
om

Latein ist das humanoide =C3=84quivalent zu Fortran.
   -- Alexander Bartolich in at.linux