> "Thomas" == Thomas Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> I wonder why automake passes CFLAGS and AM_CFLAGS
Thomas> to libtool in link mode? This makes it impossible
Thomas> to differentiate between compiler and linker (LDFLAGS)
Thomas> flags.
The GNU Coding Standards mandate this.
Hi,
On 26-Feb-2000 Ossama Othman wrote:
> I did just realize that the compiler options passed to libtool during
> the link phase are being stripped from the link command. For example:
>
>bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link c++ -W -Wall -Wpointer-arith
>-fno-implicit-templates -g -O2
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Ossama Othman wrote:
> I did just realize that the compiler options passed to libtool during
> the link phase are being stripped from the link command. For example:
>
>bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link c++ -W -Wall -Wpointer-arith
>-fno-implicit-templates -g -O2
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:08:45PM +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> Thomas Tanner wrote:
> >
> > On 19-Feb-2000 Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > >> I'm working on a fix.
> > >> My first experimental patch (an ugly hack :( is attached.
> > >> It's doesn't support the -la -lb -la case yet.
> > > It do
Hi Stephan,
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:08:45PM +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> Thomas Tanner wrote:
> > OK. I've just commited my latest patch to CVS.
> > It does now also support interdependent libraries.
> > Please test it.
>
> My first tests worked fine. It rocks. Now I wait for Ossama to
>
Thomas Tanner wrote:
>
> On 19-Feb-2000 Stephan Kulow wrote:
> >> I'm working on a fix.
> >> My first experimental patch (an ugly hack :( is attached.
> >> It's doesn't support the -la -lb -la case yet.
> > It doesn't work with static linking.
> > actually libkdecore.la links to libDCOP.la and
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:16:44AM +0100, Thomas Tanner wrote:
>
> On 19-Feb-2000 Stephan Kulow wrote:
> >> I'm working on a fix.
> >> My first experimental patch (an ugly hack :( is attached.
> >> It's doesn't support the -la -lb -la case yet.
> > It doesn't work with static linking.
> > actu
On 19-Feb-2000 Stephan Kulow wrote:
>> I'm working on a fix.
>> My first experimental patch (an ugly hack :( is attached.
>> It's doesn't support the -la -lb -la case yet.
> It doesn't work with static linking.
> actually libkdecore.la links to libDCOP.la and some other libs.
> libtool --mode=
Thomas Tanner wrote:
>
> On 14-Feb-2000 Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > Yes. I cleaned up KDE's situation a bit by now in removing LDFLAGS
> > that weren't strictly necessary but it's still a pain. I think, the
> > ILD should
> > 1) remove doubled -L calls (this should be quite simple as done with
> >
On 14-Feb-2000 Stephan Kulow wrote:
> Yes. I cleaned up KDE's situation a bit by now in removing LDFLAGS
> that weren't strictly necessary but it's still a pain. I think, the
> ILD should
> 1) remove doubled -L calls (this should be quite simple as done with
> the usual config.cache way)
OK
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>
> In any case, it might be possible, even though extremely unlikely and
> of very bad taste, that the symbols of liba that are pulled by libx
> depend on libb. In this case, omitting the first occurrence of -la
> would cause the symbols in libb to not be resolved.
>
On Feb 15, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It does make sense if another, say libx, possibly incomplete, links
>> with liba too, and pulls symbols from it that are also defined in
>> libb. If libtool omits the first `-la' in `-lx -la -lb -la', the
>> executable will get symbols
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Feb 15, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
On Feb 15, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > 2) remove doubled base libraries
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 2) remove doubled base libraries to libraries.
>
> >> This can't be done in general. It has already
On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > 2) remove doubled base libraries to libraries.
>> This can't be done in general. It has already been debated to death
>> in this mailing l
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2) remove doubled base libraries to libraries.
>
> This can't be done in general. It has already been debated to death
> in this mailing list. Please search the archives.
>
I'm very much aware of these
On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) remove doubled base libraries to libraries.
This can't be done in general. It has already been debated to death
in this mailing list. Please search the archives.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Enjoy G
Ossama Othman wrote:
>
> Hi Stephan,
>
> Here's an update on the ILD line being too long in the multi-language
> branch.
>
> The changes I checked in to the multi-language branch a few days ago
> improves the situation for the multi-language branch adding the
> inter-library dependencies extrac
Hi Stephan,
Here's an update on the ILD line being too long in the multi-language
branch.
The changes I checked in to the multi-language branch a few days ago
improves the situation for the multi-language branch adding the
inter-library dependencies extracted from the C++ compiler in the
right p
20 matches
Mail list logo
