* Patrick Welche wrote on Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:09:29PM CEST: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 02:23:06PM +0200, Jeremie LE HEN wrote: > > IMO, the user is confused while reading this. Furthermore, the > > first statement is wrong in regard to the example on the NetBSD box > > (burger) : > > burger$ libtool compile gcc -g -O -c foo.c > > mkdir .libs > > gcc -g -O -c foo.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/foo.o > > gcc -g -O -c foo.c -o foo.o >/dev/null 2>&1 > > burger$ > > > > Note that in this cas, the .lo control file is indeed created > > silently as stated in the second sentence I pointed out. The PIC > > library is stored in .libs/foo.o, not in foo.lo as the first > > statement let understand.
Yes, this is true. It used to be like documented, long ago. > Just to check, I just tried this: > > quartz% uname -s > NetBSD > quartz% libtool compile gcc -g -O -c foo.c > libtool: compile: gcc -g -O -c foo.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/foo.o > libtool: compile: gcc -g -O -c foo.c -o foo.o >/dev/null 2>&1 *snip* > quartz% libtool --version > ltmain.sh (GNU libtool 1.1984 2005/07/11 12:11:25) 2.1a > ... > quartz% diff -s foo.o .libs/foo.o > Files foo.o and .libs/foo.o are identical > So your comment is correct. I just wonder why there are two foo.o files. Because in general they are _not_ identical on NetBSD. Show foo.c. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
