This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-05/msg01104.html
- To: aoliva at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-05/msg01104.html
- From: Jim Wilson <wilson at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:55:23 -0700
- Cc: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Newsgroups: cygnus.egcs.patches
- References: <20000520093135A.mitchell@codesourcery.com><orhfbt9nwh.fsf@tamanduatei.dcc.unicamp.br><20000520095133R.mitchell@codesourcery.com><20000520220957.A25977@valinux.com>
In article <orbt1z5v17.fsf@tamanduatei.dcc.unicamp.br> you write:
>AFAIK, multiple -B flags accumulate, and they're searched
>left-to-right.
-B flags are prepended to gcc's internal search lists. Hence, the last
one specified is the first one searched, and they are searched right to left.
It has always been this way.
The part of H.J.'s patch that puts the gcc -B option last is correct.
When -B flags were added to the Makefiles, there were put in the wrong order,
and no one noticed for a long time because the order matters only when
binutils changes in an incompatible way.
The part of H.J.'s patch that I don't understand is why he adds a
-B option pointing to a library directory: -B$(build_tooldir)/lib/.
There are no executables there, so adding a -B option for that directory
seems wrong and unnecessary.
Jim