search for: gcc_no_link

...you describe. Apparently the GCC folks wrote a new >version of the macro due to the >above behavior. As suggested, I googled and found this interesting answer for above error and behavior: http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-bugs at gcc.gnu.org/msg89727.html I've been investigating why gcc_no_link was true for a while. And found that it was the ld version of llvm - gccld - which caused the error and behavior. gccld and other llvm tools have a bug originated from Win32/Path.cpp, in my case, on the MinGW platform. I'll leave this discussion in another thread. Henrik. _________________...