ML-Branch and static constructors

2000-08-25 Thread jan . gentsch
Hi, has anyone managed to get static constructors working using the libtool ml-branch and automake (1.4) and would be able to give me some hints? I am woking on linux, with gcc2.95.2. Thanks, Jan -- ·´¯`·.¸¸..><º>.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><º>¸.·´¯`·.¸.,..·´¯`·.. ><º>`·.¸¸.·´

Re: ML-Branch and static constructors

2000-08-26 Thread jan . gentsch
After a bit more experimentation I can come up with the following. A simple singelton works. That is good. What I am trying to implement though is a factory setup along these lines: /** * Humans are quite simple */ class IHuman { public: virtual string sayHello() = 0; }; /** * is an a

Re: ML-Branch and static constructors

2000-08-27 Thread jan . gentsch
I am quite sorry. It turns out it doesn't seem to be libtools fault at all. It appears that the Male object is never included into the executable as it is never been referenced directly by any other object. So I need some way of forcing the object to be included into the executable despite being u

linkerflags get eaten

2000-08-29 Thread jan . gentsch
Hi, I am having some problems linking together some libtool convenience libraries and a shared and an external shared library. As part of the solution I need to pass the "-nostartfiles" flag to gcc during linking. However the flag simply gets eaten if I pass it through libtool via libmva_la_LDFLAG

Re: linkerflags get eaten

2000-08-29 Thread jan . gentsch
That doesn't work. These flags get eaten as described. I love manuals! All the best, Jan. "Gary V. Vaughan" wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 02:03:35PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I am having some problems linking together some libtool convenience > > libraries and a shared and an exte

Re: linkerflags get eaten

2000-08-31 Thread jan . gentsch
I am using libtool 1.3.4. Have a look at post from Alexandre Oliva. It appears the problem is known. I haven't had time to try his sugestion yet though. Jan "Gary V. Vaughan" wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 10:52:58PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > That doesn't work. These flags get eaten