* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, May 03, 2007 at 06:00:22AM CEST: > On Wed, 2 May 2007, Scott D. Fleming wrote: >> >> Is libtool or the underlying linker smart enough to recognize and >> ignore the duplicate libraries? > > I think that the content of convenience libraries is extracted into > individual .o files prior to being used for linkage.
This is true if the linker doesn't have a functionality similar to --whole-archive, and if the resulting output is a library, rather than a program. > They are not used for > linking like traditional archive libraries. This means that any duplicates > would result in individual .o files being overwritten prior to use. This is not true. When extracted, object files with identical names are renamed. > In other words non-fatal for building applications. However, if you > build installed libraries based on these convenience libraries, you > could run into trouble if two installed libraries included some of the > same objects. The rule of thumb is to put each convenience archive in at most one library, and never into a program. (Convenience archives do not end up as whole in a program; if that is not a problem for you, then that part should be ok.) > A radically-different solution is to use a non-recursive Makefile scheme. > This eliminates the need for convenience libraries entirely and speeds up > the build. Automake does support this reasonably well and you can use > Makefile includes to still keep Makefile fragments alongside the sources. > However, the Makefile fragments require "namespacing" as if everything is > referenced from the top level Makefile (which they will be). This is a good suggestion. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
