On May 20, 2001, Sander Vesik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ld.so never sees static libraries.
But libtool does. That's the difference. It's not just about
creating shared libraries. It must take creation of static libraries
into account.
Besides, there are indeed a number of dynamic linkers
On 20 May 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 20, 2001, Sander Vesik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > you don't then even need to care about indirect depenencies.
>
> I wish...
>
> > Or are there broken ld.so-s that wouldn't support this?
>
> Think static libraries, for one.
>
ld.so never
On May 20, 2001, Sander Vesik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you don't then even need to care about indirect depenencies.
I wish...
> Or are there broken ld.so-s that wouldn't support this?
Think static libraries, for one.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliv
On 20 May 2001, Martin Baulig wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > Just make sure no library appears explicitly more than once in the
> > dependence list of any library or program, and you'll get exactly what
> > you want.
>
> This does not work.
>
> Imagine the foll
On May 20, 2001, Martin Baulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll debug it later on.
Thanks!
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's why I wrote *explicitly*. You shouldn't get -lm duplicated in
> this case. If you do, it's a bug. You should only get it duplicated
> if it appeared more than once in the dependence list of liba.la or
> libb.la; if it appears only once it bo
On May 20, 2001, Martin Baulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On May 20, 2001, Martin Baulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > If you have a "complicated" dependency setup, this will slow down linking
>> > in a very extreme way (it is more than 5 tim
Martin Baulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> somewhere between libtool 1.3.x and 1.4, you did the following:
>
>
> 1999-12-15 Thomas Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * ltmain.in: don't remove multiple occurences from dependency_libs
> of a library, otherwise many depend
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 20, 2001, Martin Baulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you have a "complicated" dependency setup, this will slow down linking
> > in a very extreme way (it is more than 5 times slower for me) because I get
> > libraries like -lm or -ldl l
On May 20, 2001, Martin Baulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have a "complicated" dependency setup, this will slow down linking
> in a very extreme way (it is more than 5 times slower for me) because I get
> libraries like -lm or -ldl listed over 30 times in the dependency_libs.
> Is it po
Hi,
somewhere between libtool 1.3.x and 1.4, you did the following:
1999-12-15 Thomas Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* ltmain.in: don't remove multiple occurences from dependency_libs
of a library, otherwise many dependencies would get lost
If you have a "complicated
11 matches
Mail list logo
