> That might be true in the current implementation, but that's bogus.
> [ ... ]
> Side effects like that are REALLY bogus! 

"Glad you think so, but I and the people in industry who implement
these things seem to disagree with you."  8-)


> Talk about doing things the
> wrong way!  This is the kind of thing that makes software developers who
> are trying to build clean solid reliable systems with guaranteed
> repeatability shake their fists with rage at the inventors of dynamic
> libraries!

so you claim.

I'd say it goes something more like this:

"specified on the link line, goes into program's list of required
shared libs" -> repeatable, consistent, what the user asked for

"specified on link line, only goes in if linker somehow decides it's
needed" -> inconsistent, subject to whims of linker implementation and
the actual contents of each individual library on any given day, and
definitely not what the user asked for.

Me, i'd rather have what I asked the linker to do -- include a
specific set of libraries -- deterministically cause those libraries
to be included.



cgd