This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] ld: Add '--defined' command line option.
- From: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:35:46 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] ld: Add '--defined' command line option.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1437426340-25537-1-git-send-email-andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com> <55B0CF5A dot 1030901 at redhat dot com> <20150723213421 dot GE3510 at embecosm dot com>
>> * I think that the name of the option, --defined is slightly confusing.
>> When I first read your submission I thought that it meant that a defined
>> symbol was being created, ie that it was an alias of --defsym. So how about
>> a different name ? For example --no-allow-undef=<foo>. [This version might
>> even be extended so the the inverse option --allow-undef=<foo> would stop
>> --no-undefined from complaining if that particular symbol was undefined].
>> Or how about --undefined-and-err= so that the connection with --undefined is
>> more obvious ?
> I'm not massively attached to the flag name. The no-allow-undef /
> allow-undef though a nice idea would still require --undefined to be
> used, I'd like to have a single flag, to reduce the chance of user
> That leaves --undefined-and-err from your suggestions, or how about
> --require-defined=SYM, it doesn't have the same connection with
> --undefined, but I think that might be nicer.
I like --require-defined=SYM, or (even better) just plain --require=SYM.
I agree with Nick -- the problem with --defined is that, although it's
clearly related to --undefined, it implies that it should have the