On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 09:12:54PM -0500, Jason Day wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 12:43:24AM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 05:38:35PM -0500, Jason Day wrote:
> > > So I tried building a shared version of the static library, and libtool gave
> > > me a shared library,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 12:43:24AM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 05:38:35PM -0500, Jason Day wrote:
> > So I tried building a shared version of the static library, and libtool gave
> > me a shared library, but with a dependency I didn't want. Is there a way to
> > link a
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 05:38:35PM -0500, Jason Day wrote:
> So I tried building a shared version of the static library, and libtool gave
> me a shared library, but with a dependency I didn't want. Is there a way to
> link an object file and a (PIC) static library into a self-contained shared
> l
I'm trying to link an object file and a static library together into a
shared library. I've been doing this with gcc without problems, but now I'd
like to use libtool for more portability. Linking the files with libtool,
however, gives me something like this:
*** Warning: This library needs som
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to check out 1.5 and send in any patches when
I have them.
Assistant Vice President means Vice President before your company was eaten up
by a merger :-)
Take Care
Chris
> Christopher Knight wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ossama,
> >
> > Unfortunately we do
Ossama,
Is the multi-language-branch at a state that I could check it out and use it
to build?
Chris
> On Mar 23, 2000, Christopher Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is there any hack that anyone can think of to switch libtool's usage
> > of .lo's to .o's for the time being. I don't real
Hi Christopher,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:39:39AM -0600, Christopher Knight wrote:
> Is the multi-language-branch at a state that I could check it out and use it
> to build?
The short answer is that if you only need to use the core libtool
functionality on Linux or Solaris, then it should work
On Mar 23, 2000, Christopher Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any other ideas on forcing statically linking one library?
I'm not sure this can be done portably, but you could try to
explicitly list libname.a (i.e., pick the old_library name from
libname.la)
--
Alexandre OlivaEnjoy Guara
Greetings all,
I'm now using libtool-ml to build my project and now need to somehow force
a single library (tcl, :( I know, I know) statically although the dynamic
library exists along side the static one (It would also be next to
impossible for me to remove this). With libtool 1.3 I simply dump
Christopher Knight wrote:
>
> Hi Ossama,
>
> Unfortunately we do need dlopen and dlpreopen support. We have a C++ core that
> dlopens a bunch of C++ .so modules. One main reason we switched from Imake to
> Automake is to allow us to use the dlpreopen functionality without rolling
> our own :( We
Hi Ossama,
Unfortunately we do need dlopen and dlpreopen support. We have a C++ core that
dlopens a bunch of C++ .so modules. One main reason we switched from Imake to
Automake is to allow us to use the dlpreopen functionality without rolling
our own :( We are also porting to Linux)
How much w
>
> > > Also, almost everything works after changing all the .lo's to .o's.
> >
> > Yup. In the multi-language branch, IIRC, the .lo file is placed in
> > the .libs directory, named `.o', and the .lo file is created as a
> > wrapper script, just like the .la files.
>
> Yes indeed. :-)
Is th
On Mar 23, 2000, Christopher Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any hack that anyone can think of to switch libtool's usage
> of .lo's to .o's for the time being. I don't really mind if it's a
> huge hack :-), as long as I can get this product building with
> autoconf/automake/libtool..
13 matches
Mail list logo
