Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #101593

Re: linking precedence rules

From Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: linking precedence rules
Date 2017-01-13 10:41 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <87shonp7gy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <edef9tF8tn5U1@mid.individual.net> <s8j57c9s06a8iodjk2oovsn409gadcr1ev@4ax.com> <edpa7vFt8c3U1@mid.individual.net> <87vatkquaq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <edrmliFgh80U1@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> writes:

> On 1/12/2017 5:31 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> writes:
>> <snip>
>>> whether parsing has been performed. If I write the standard "hello
>>> world" program, how do I figure out which stdio.h is being used from
>>> the compiler's perspective?
>>
>> If you are using a gcc-derived compiler, you might find it has a -M
>> option.  This is intended for generating make files, but it has the
>> effect of showing you what files your source depends on which includes
>> all the systems files included either directly or indirectly.
>>
> C:\Users\Fred\Documents\Win32-LongPath-master\Win32-LongPath-master\iuy\Win32-LongPath-master>gcc
> -o differ -Wall diff1.c -IC:\MinGW\include
> /mingw/lib/libmingw32.a(setargv.o):(.text+0x33): undefined reference
> to `__chkstk_ms'
> ...
> /mingw/lib/libmingwex.a(glob.o):(.text+0xb2e): more undefined
> references to `__chkstk_ms' follow
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

These are linker errors.  I was answering your question about which
stdio.h is being used.

Some people, new to C, confuse the header file with the library that
eventually provides the code described by the header file.  If that's
the case here, I answered the question you asked but should have
consider the question you really intended.  For that (how to get your
version of gcc to link the right libraries) you will be much better off
asking people who know about mingw.

> I took some C source from
> http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/K%26R2_solutions:Chapter_7:Exercise_6 , and
> added one more standard header, clearing the diagnostics which, I
> believe, precede the linking stage.
>
> Then I thought, alright then, time to use that -M flag.

It's quite possible that the -M flag does something else when mingw sees
it.  But at the very best it would have answered the question about
include files.

<snip>
> The above is completely-standard C. How do I get this thing hooked up right?

You need to find out somewhere to ask that will find people who use
mingw.  It looks like something in your installation is broken.  Simple
program should be simple to compile (and indeed they were the few times
I ever used mingw).

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-07 23:49 -0800
  Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-08 21:20 +1300
    Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-08 01:32 -0800
      Re: linking precedence rules "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 11:08 -0500
        Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-12 03:25 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-12 13:31 +0100
            OT Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 01:18 -0800
      Re: linking precedence rules Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-01-08 15:38 -0800
        Re: linking precedence rules "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 18:46 -0500
        Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-12 04:13 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 12:21 +0000
            Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 00:23 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-16 06:20 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 05:10 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-02-04 17:12 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 20:47 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-12 13:31 +0000
            Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-13 01:58 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 10:41 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 03:49 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 12:03 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 14:02 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 13:46 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-14 14:23 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:31 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 16:18 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 17:49 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 17:21 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 10:12 +1300
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 21:59 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 14:12 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 11:39 +1300
                Re: linking precedence rules Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-14 16:03 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 11:51 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-15 02:04 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 23:48 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 20:28 +0000
                The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-14 14:14 +0000
                Re: The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 14:29 +0000
                Re: The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 14:20 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-15 01:40 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-15 11:43 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-01-18 19:55 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:22 +0000
              Re: comparison logic Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-13 16:05 +0100
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 15:37 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 16:06 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-13 19:37 +0100
                Re: comparison logic BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-13 18:42 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 18:49 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 20:50 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-14 01:05 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 01:27 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-14 13:56 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-15 14:45 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 20:42 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-15 21:04 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 04:47 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 11:40 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-03 16:42 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 18:45 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 21:03 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 08:07 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 08:50 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 12:15 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 12:38 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 14:13 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 14:45 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-12 10:20 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-12 14:32 +0000
          Re: linking precedence rules James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-12 13:33 -0500

csiph-web