Am Monday 20 September 2004 13:58 schrieb Lubos Lunak:

> > that prevents closure in those places where we need it (alternatively, not
> > doing closure on C++-based libs might work as well, but sounds trickier).
> >
> > The attached patch adds this, and seems to work for libemailfunctions at
> > least. OK?
> 
>  That doesn't make any sense to me. Why don't you simply fix the libraries? 
> Besides, the original purpose of closures is something about collecting 
> missing symbols at link time (templates stuff and so, not necessary with gcc, 
> so I'm not sure if it actually does something), the fact that it checks for 
> undefined symbols is just a side effect.
> 
Just for the record: I'm with Lubos here. I don't see a sense to add a 
"the --no-undefined flag I added doesn't make any sense" flag. 

Greetings, Stephan