RE: Problem with ltdl.h
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexandre Oliva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:53 PM
> To: Kevin Atkinson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Problem with ltdl.h
>
>
> On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > in C++
> >> > struct lt_dlhandle
> >> > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit
> >> > typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle;
> >>
> >> However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name overridden by
> >> another definition of the name, which is what the `typedef' does.
>
> > So are you saying that you are not going to fix it.
>
> Not really. I'm just asking for better arguments to make me change my
> mind about it :-)
>
> > It does NOT appear
> > to be valid C++ code
>
> I've just managed to compile:
>
> typedef struct foo foo;
>
> with g++, version 2.95.2. So it *is* valid C++. I don't understand
> why G++ is complaining about it.
YES! this is valid; what's NOT is
typedef struct foo* foo;
^___ notice the '*' there.
canopus{SoftWrks}: echo "typedef struct foo* foo;" > tst.cpp
canopus{SoftWrks}: gcc -c tst.cpp
tst.cpp:1: conflicting types for `typedef struct foo * foo'
tst.cpp:1: previous declaration as `struct foo'
canopus{SoftWrks}:
>
> If some widely used C++ compiler fails to compile it, for example,
> when ltdl.h is in its standard header-file search path, then we may
> have a good reason to change it. But first I want to understand the
> problem, so that it can at least be documented.
ALL C++ comilers should choke on this. AND as I say in my previous mail it
is VERY misleading to typedef a pointer to something with the same name as
this something.
Of course, as I've also said earlier, I don't have the latest CVS libtool,
so I take for granted what the initial message said, that is the offending
code is
typedef struct lt_dlhandle *lt_dlhandle;
If there is no '*', all is OK of course.
Bernard
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
RE: Problem with ltdl.h
Oops, sending my previous mail just trigger our mail server to notify me of
the other mails :-)
Please forgive the unneeded noise.
Bernard
PS: BTW renaming the struct to "struct lt_dlhandle_struct" or seems better
than renaming again the typedef, as lt_dlhandle is conveying the right
semantics (usually a HANDLE is a pointer to a descriptor of where to find
something).
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Bernard Dautrevaux
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:39 AM
> To: 'Alexandre Oliva'; Kevin Atkinson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Problem with ltdl.h
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alexandre Oliva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:53 PM
> > To: Kevin Atkinson
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Problem with ltdl.h
> >
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > >> On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > in C++
> > >> >struct lt_dlhandle
> > >> > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit
> > >> >typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle;
> > >>
> > >> However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name
> overridden by
> > >> another definition of the name, which is what the `typedef' does.
> >
> > > So are you saying that you are not going to fix it.
> >
> > Not really. I'm just asking for better arguments to make
> me change my
> > mind about it :-)
> >
> > > It does NOT appear
> > > to be valid C++ code
> >
> > I've just managed to compile:
> >
> > typedef struct foo foo;
> >
> > with g++, version 2.95.2. So it *is* valid C++. I don't understand
> > why G++ is complaining about it.
>
> YES! this is valid; what's NOT is
>
> typedef struct foo* foo;
> ^___ notice the '*' there.
>
> canopus{SoftWrks}: echo "typedef struct foo* foo;" > tst.cpp
> canopus{SoftWrks}: gcc -c tst.cpp
> tst.cpp:1: conflicting types for `typedef struct foo * foo'
> tst.cpp:1: previous declaration as `struct foo'
> canopus{SoftWrks}:
>
> >
> > If some widely used C++ compiler fails to compile it, for example,
> > when ltdl.h is in its standard header-file search path, then we may
> > have a good reason to change it. But first I want to understand the
> > problem, so that it can at least be documented.
>
> ALL C++ comilers should choke on this. AND as I say in my
> previous mail it is VERY misleading to typedef a pointer to
> something with the same name as this something.
>
> Of course, as I've also said earlier, I don't have the latest
> CVS libtool, so I take for granted what the initial message
> said, that is the offending code is
> typedef struct lt_dlhandle *lt_dlhandle;
>
> If there is no '*', all is OK of course.
>
>
> Bernard
>
>
> Bernard Dautrevaux
> Microprocess Ingenierie
> 97 bis, rue de Colombes
> 92400 COURBEVOIE
> FRANCE
> Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
> Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
libtool & AIX
I have tried to create a working example for shared libs on AIX4.2 and succeded. unfortunaly i dont have the time to translate my findings into libtools. doese sombody care about the AIX port ? i can send him everything i have here. walter ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:01:23AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 28, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How about we simply change the name of the struct to lt_handlerecord > > or something? > > I prefer `something' :-) > > How about `typedef struct lt_dlhandle_struct lt_dlhandle'? Done! -- ___ _ ___ __ _ mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / __|__ _ _ ___ _| | / / | / /_ _ _ _ __ _| |_ __ _ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (_ / _` | '_|// / |/ /| |/ / _` | || / _` | ' \/ _` | _ \ \___\__,_|_|\_, /|___(_)___/\__,_|\_,_\__, |_||_\__,_|//_/ home page: /___/ /___/ gpg public key: http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk/key.asc ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: rpath command?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexandre Oliva writes: >[linking a library from other libraries with no object files] > >The point is that this just can't be done portably. Since libtool's major purpose is to allow libraries to be built using a portable interface, perhaps it should take care of this for the developer? So on platforms where this doesn't work, perhaps libtool should add a dummy file implicitly, rather than the developer having to implement the bodge themselves? >(ii) automake wouldn't know which compiler/linker to use for the >library you're creating. Specifying one or more source files is >supposed to give automake a clue on which languages are being used in >the sub-libraries. This would be an obstacle to libtool creating the bodge file, but the .la file could be extended to contain information about languages used in a libtool library. Cheers, Olly ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
