Re: How do I link to a shared lib without having that lib's dependencies (the way MS link does)

["Don Woodward" <woodward at woodward dot org>]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think it should even be a
warning.
(I worked with Dave W. on the original post and provided the Windows test
case).

"Ian Lance Taylor" <ian@airs.com> wrote in message
m3he4m8uk8.fsf@gossamer.airs.com">news:m3he4m8uk8.fsf@gossamer.airs.com...
> Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:
> > I don't think downgrading this to a warning is a good idea.
> > Too often it will be ignored.
>
> Hmmm.  To me it really is just a warning.  There are a number of ways
> in which everything could work out fine.  We're not talking here about
> an undefined symbol in the program itself.  We're talking about an
> undefined symbol in a shared library against which the program is
> linked.

We're not even talking about an undefined symbol at all.
The shared lib linked fine without any warnings or errors,
How can linking to the shared lib produce warnings?

To me it's very clear cut:
If A dynamically links to B, but not C, and B dynamically links to C,
then A should have no linkage dependencies on C - it's not using
C's symbols, B is and B has already linked.