Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:04:14 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: crossd@cs.rpi.edu Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: linking question... Message-ID: <199907211604.JAA71266@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <199907210557.BAA43815@cs.rpi.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <199907210557.BAA43815@cs.rpi.edu>, David E. Cross <crossd@cs.rpi.edu> wrote: > > The problem indeed was conflicting libraries... (in /usr/X11R6/lib).. however > I did place on the line *immediately* before the -lwcs a -L/usr/local/lib, > however it appeared to take the /usr/X11R6/lib (which was in a previous -L > statement) version instead. Is this correct? Yes, it's correct. The -L options can appear anywhere relative to the -l options -- even after them -- and it doesn't make any difference. The relative ordering among the -L options with respect to *each other* is all ld cares about. That's been the traditional behavior on every Unix system I've ever used that supported -L at all. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up." -- Nora Ephron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907211604.JAA71266>