On 2014-04-29 17:30, Evgeny Grin wrote:
> 29.04.2014, 11:36, "Peter Rosin":
The situation you outlined is due to a defective package
preparation/build environment. A proper build has just one version of
a given library in a link.
>>> Could you explain this a little bit?
>> It is
29.04.2014, 11:36, "Peter Rosin" :
> Here you have a point, methinks. If you have specified -disable-static, it
> is surprising that static can be the only output, instead of a fail.
Correct. But this is another topic, which I raised already in this mailing list.
>>> The situation you outlined
A proper build has just one version of
>> a given library in a link.
> Could you explain this a little bit?
> In the topic "-no-undefined on Win32" I was talking about only one version of
> lib.
It is defective since the project has failed to specify -no-undefined wh
ned is due to a defective package
> preparation/build environment. A proper build has just one version of
> a given library in a link.
Could you explain this a little bit?
In the topic "-no-undefined on Win32" I was talking about only one version of
lib.
> Regardless, it is very unl
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Evgeny Grin wrote:
Good. But requiring "-no-undefined" for Win32 flag lower probability of
successful compile.
In what way does it lower the probability of a successful compile?
Static linkage is much more portable than dynamic.
The situation you outlined is due to a d
20.04.2014, 05:15, "Bob Friesenhahn" :
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2014, Evgeny Grin wrote:
>
>>> Libtool always defaults to successful compilation and link, to the
>>> maximum extent possible.
>> That's nice, leave it to compiler and linker. If something can be compiled
>> and linked, it will be compil
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014, Evgeny Grin wrote:
Libtool always defaults to successful compilation and link, to the
maximum extent possible.
That's nice, leave it to compiler and linker. If something can be compiled and
linked, it will be compiled and linked. If it can't be, then compiler or linker
18.04.2014, 19:17, "Bob Friesenhahn" :
> Why does it create more headache when porting to Win32? Using this
> option indicates that the project has been constructed in a way which
> will work on systems which do not allow undefined symbols. Many
> projects (particularly those targeting only GNU
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014, Evgeny Grin wrote:
Hi,
It's strange for me that last line in following qoute from ltmain.in is
commented out:
---
# It is impossible to link a dll without this setting, and
# we shouldn't force the makefile maintainer to figure out
# what system we are compi
Hi,
It's strange for me that last line in following qoute from ltmain.in is
commented out:
---
# It is impossible to link a dll without this setting, and
# we shouldn't force the makefile maintainer to figure out
# what system we are compiling for in order to pass an extra
10 matches
Mail list logo
