On 21/09/11 10:14, Alessandro Candini wrote:
On 20/09/11 17:04, Nick Bowler wrote:
On 2011-09-19 15:34 +0200, Alessandro Candini wrote:
Configure and make works but I do not produce a dynamic linked
executable, unlike the original John's example:
../src $ ldd hello
not a dynamic executabl
On 20/09/11 17:04, Nick Bowler wrote:
On 2011-09-19 15:34 +0200, Alessandro Candini wrote:
Configure and make works but I do not produce a dynamic linked
executable, unlike the original John's example:
../src $ ldd hello
not a dynamic executable
This is normal. When libtool creates an ex
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:45:34PM +0200, Alessandro Candini wrote:
> >>../src $ ldd hello
> >> not a dynamic executable
Well spotted by Nick! (I should have asked for "file hello")
Cheers,
Patrick
___
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtoo
On 2011-09-19 15:34 +0200, Alessandro Candini wrote:
> Configure and make works but I do not produce a dynamic linked
> executable, unlike the original John's example:
> ../src $ ldd hello
> not a dynamic executable
This is normal. When libtool creates an executable that links against
other
On 20/09/11 16:31, Patrick Welche wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 03:34:22PM +0200, Alessandro Candini wrote:
Hi everyone.
I have a problem making ltdl library work with some C++ code.
I have implemented my personal version of the example at the end of
Chapter 7 in the book "Autotools" by John Ca
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 03:34:22PM +0200, Alessandro Candini wrote:
> Hi everyone.
> I have a problem making ltdl library work with some C++ code.
> I have implemented my personal version of the example at the end of
> Chapter 7 in the book "Autotools" by John Calcote.
> Basically it is the same, b
Hi everyone.
I have a problem making ltdl library work with some C++ code.
I have implemented my personal version of the example at the end of
Chapter 7 in the book "Autotools" by John Calcote.
Basically it is the same, but I have C++ source files and I use g++
instead of gcc.
Configure and make
Hello,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:12:41PM CEST:
> On 06/10/2010 09:45 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> >>I think it would be better in c++.
> >
> >No, that would mean you have to jump through hoops to use it from C.
> It's simple to write a library in C++ but make its public in
On 06/10/2010 09:45 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
I think it would be better in c++.
No, that would mean you have to jump through hoops to use it from C.
And it would make me cry myself to sleep at night. I avoid C++, Perl,
McDonalds and suicide bomber recruiters as much as I possibly can. I'm
