Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:15:44 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Using strip --strip-debug on libraries
In-Reply-To: <3943FF16.E1454F6B@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000613131528.16888J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Richard Dawe wrote:

> The other day I ran strip with the '--strip-debug' option on a library.
> The library I ran it had several files named 'init.o' within. I found that
> after stripping, there was only one file called 'init.o'. Is strip
> supposed to work this way? It seems counter-intuitive to me that strip
> would rewrite the archive's table o'contents (TOC).

That `strip' rewrites the TOC seems reasonable: it rewrites the entire
archive, after all.  What you need to make sure that it leaves the
last copy of init.o in the archive and removes the rest.

A more importtant question is: how did that library wind up with more
than a single copy of init.o in it?  Libraries aren't supposed to
behave that way, unless you use `ar' incorrectly (e.g., "ar q" with a
non-empty library).