On Jan 5, 2005, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le 4 janv. 05, Ã 00:02, Peter O'Gorman a Ãcrit :
>> I have no idea what is supposed to happen in this situation. You have >> specified that static libraries should not be built and also asked that >> executables be statically linked against not-yet-installed libraries. > Right. Note quite. -static, for libtool, doesn't mean `reject any dynamic libraries', it just means `prefer static libraries over dynamic ones'. Yes, it's different from what compilers and linkers have done for -static historically, but it was deemed more useful to implement it this way. If you really, really, absolutely need a static executable, use -all-static. This should get the link to fail should a library only be available in dynamic form, or the system reject static binaries altogether. > Right. But linking statically a dynamic library doesn't sound > absurd to me (but I may be naive here). It sounds absurd to me, FWIW :-) > At least, it works fine on GNU/Linux. Are you sure? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
