2011/1/24 Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> > Hello Sergio, > > * Sergio Belkin wrote on Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:13:16PM CET: > > I've found great the option "-no-install". But I wonder if is there a > > way to build directly the executables files, I mean that don't create > > object file "something.o" and only do something.o > > You mean creating an executable directly from source file(s)? > No, Automake doesn't really support that. You can try to write > a rule that passes foo.c to 'libtool --mode=link', but since we > don't test that I'm guessing that it won't work reliably. > > What's the point of this anyway? AFAIK the only thing you save > by omitting the object file is one fork&exec of the compiler driver, > which is often negligible compared with the actual work the compiler > and linker do. You can 'make mostlyclean' to remove object files > you don't need again afterwards. > > Cheers, > Ralf >
Sorry, I was no clear enough Let's say that you have a library libfoo.so and you have on build tree a source file fred.c. You've created a test target that creat (with -no-install flag) the ELF executable fred (note that has no extension). But libtool create also fred.o "an ELF relocatable", is there a way that libtool create only the "ELF excutable"? What is the advantage of create an "intermediate file"? Please correct me if I have a wrong concept. Thanks in advance! -- -- Sergio Belkin http://www.sergiobelkin.com Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com LPIC-2 Certified
_______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
