Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:39:17 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> Cc: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>, bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/18104: missing include file in sh(1) Message-ID: <20000420133917.A15938@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <20000420135728.A4712@happy.checkpoint.com>; from mellon@pobox.com on Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 01:57:28PM %2B0000 References: <200004200400.VAA88954@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000420120542.B14071@cons.org> <20000420131840.A1964@happy.checkpoint.com> <20000420123550.B14798@cons.org> <20000420135728.A4712@happy.checkpoint.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <20000420135728.A4712@happy.checkpoint.com>, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:35:51PM +0200, Martin Cracauer wrote: > > > > The difference is that mine does not have -static. > > > > If you build from /usr/src to /usr/obj, you get -static, if you build > > outside, you don't :-( > > > > Suboptimal control mechanism, I'd say. It is also questionable why > > the -static case tries to resolve symbols that are already defined in > > primary object files in the static libraries as well. > > I'd say it's fair to presume the linker just treats static libraries > as big lumps of statis object files and heaps them together with primary > object files. > > Anyway, the problem does exist. At least for people who want their > shells static, thank-you-very-much ;) Maybe we should just rename the > trace function and be done with it? Of course, I didn't want to say your fix isn't needed. Just commiting it. -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000420133917.A15938>