Summary: | -l:/absolute/path/to/lib.so broken | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | binutils | Reporter: | mallet |
Component: | ld | Assignee: | Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | 4xrsJCr9, amodra, sourceware |
Priority: | P2 | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Host: | Target: | ||
Build: | Last reconfirmed: |
Description
mallet
2014-11-16 21:49:25 UTC
It was a deliberate bug fix. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 17532 *** I understand bug 17532 is a deliberate fix. However, I was talking more precisely about using an absolute path name. Traditionaly, absolute paths are considered as such and do not require any "search path". I noticed that using an explicit -L/ in front of a -l:/absolute/path.so make it work, which I find a bit weird. For instance, if there happen to be a /foo/absolute/path.so, using -L/foo -l:/absolute/path.so would not give the expected results. I think that either -l:/absolute/path.so should raise an error, or be treated as such. What do you think? I don't see -l:/... being much different to -l/... For example, -L. -l/c will load ./lib/c.so or ./lib/c.a if such files exist. I don't think ld should warn in either case. *** Bug 17800 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |