So do I have to rebuild flex just to support a dynamic lib, which uses some parser generator support?
2000-01-19 Thomas Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* ltmain.in: rewrite of the ILD code, merge linking code for programs, libraries and objects, allow linking of shared libraries against static libraries/objects on platforms that support it but print a warning, fix some typos
It was already implemented in libtool.
If all fails, try to set pass_all at the right place so this check is 'skipped': if test "$deplibs_check_method" != pass_all; then ...don't link... else ...link...
The only reason I see why it is not or just partially supported by libtool is that it doesn't work on platforms where is a real difference between PIC and nonPIC code.
THere is also a thread n the archives where Charles explains why the pass_all flag is not default for Cygwin.
yes, that would be interesting to read, because I'm wondering what prevents libtool on cygwin to ignore the duplication of efforts providing PIC (in .libs) and nonPIC objects, where both are effectively the same. And then refuses to build on false assumptions.
(PIC != non-PIC on cygwin)
Maybe some src defines are in effect for the .libs/ which could hurt.
(or did hurt before the improved binutils)
So far I found nothing, but charles has a lot of messages in the archive to explore. I'll start with the libtool demo's from the src packages. mdemo-shared looks promising.
for now I live this ugly workaround: extract the objects from the static lib, copy them (as fake) to the PIC objects, and build my module. -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
