Re: Windows FFI patch

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> > > Does this harm gcc?
> >
> > I'm afraid it does: the arguments are usually C files and -l options
> > for libraries, and the libraries are scanned in the order they appear.
> > Put them too early, and it fails to find a symbol defined in a later
> > file.  Perhaps we should make it vary.
> 
> What if we move the -o option before the filename? Then there won't
> usually be a warning, which is better.

That would be fine.