On 2/10/16, Vadim Zeitlin <va...@zeitlins.org> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:29:40 -0500 Nick Bowler <nbow...@draconx.ca> wrote: > NB> On 2/10/16, Bob Friesenhahn <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > NB> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Peter Rosin wrote: > NB> >> I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that --disable-static > NB> >> should end up in a failure and not somehow degrade to a static > NB> >> build anyway. > NB> > > NB> > Is this not the case? I have seen builds on Windows fail due to > NB> > using --disable-static. > NB> > NB> I just tested it on a library which does not specify -no-undefined, > NB> and therefore won't be built as a shared lib on Windows: > > This just doesn't correspond to my experience: when cross compiling from > Linux using libtool 2.4.2, a static library is created.
I cannot reproduce it. The build fails as expected. Can you reproduce with the latest release of libtool (2.4.6)? 2.4.2 is very old. Cheers, Nick _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
