* Bill Moseley wrote on Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:35:24PM CEST:
I'm wondering how to build a static binary.
Looking at the Libtool documentation, -all-static should be the option
you need. --disable-shared disables building shared libraries, it has
little to do with linking against shared
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, May 27, 2004 at 05:57:47PM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
*snip*
| Automake, a Libtool or a user problem? Why is there no standard way to
| ask a libtoolize for its corresponding m4 files (at least, one would
| think, newer versions would improve this situation
* Gary V.Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 05:15:03PM CEST:
On 4 Sep 2004, at 21:51, Tero Niemela wrote:
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf
*snip*
Section 2.2.6 is all about libtool and its
-export-symbols option. It ends with:
The only reason this method is mentioned here
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 09:12:04PM CEST:
Daniel Reed wrote:
What is branch-1-5's current role?
1.5 is winding down its status as stable branch.
There have been patches checked in as
of the 13th; will there be a 1.5.9 release?
There are no concrete plans to
* Chris Bowlby wrote on Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:00:33PM CEST:
Hi All,
I've been working on a project for some time now and am working into the
system a means of creating dynamic modules that will need to be loaded via
dlopen (will use libltdl once I've got my initial testing done - for
* Patrick Welche wrote on Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 06:29:27PM CEST:
I just came across a difference between between GNU make and BSD make:
*snip*
In otherwords, we need $(var)/bar as the dependency for success
with bsd make. Why is this relevant to libtool?
In bootstrap make is called 3
* Chris Bowlby wrote on Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 06:59:16PM CEST:
Hi All,
I've been building a standard library for an application that I'm working
on and noticed that once I started to attempt to work in threads the
linking stage seems to have dropped the link to libc_r.so, as shown in the
* Chris Bowlby wrote on Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 02:42:51AM CET:
Thanks for the help, but seemed to have no effect, I'm building this on a
FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE box, with libtool version 1.5.8.
I was not adding the -lc_r parameter itself, automake/configure did that
for me during the compile
* Chris Bowlby wrote on Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 05:37:33PM CET:
At 02:44 PM 10/31/2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Try adding -no-undefined. Should fail at library link time then.
This had no effect on the compiler, it still managed to compile with out
issue.
This seems to be a separate issue
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 04:33:45PM CET:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
This seems like a particularly bad idea to me. What is the value of
changing existing documented libtool behavior?
Consistency, and user expectation.
* Christoph Wellner wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 03:08:02PM CET:
I have a problem with libtool-1.5.6, when I want to start my compiled app,
I get an error-message, that some libraries are not found:
/home/chwellner/nmm2_sarge/apps/clic/.libs/lt-clic: error while loading
shared
Hi Sasayama,
* Sasayama wrote on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 05:26:52AM CET:
I'm trying cross-compilation of libtoolized packages and have problems.
First, libtool searches /lib, /usr/lib, and /usr/local/lib for .la files
instead of implicit library directories for cross-compilation, and fails
to
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 02:46:09PM CET:
I just want to get some possibilities out there into the ether. Feel free
to add more bits/say which bits are silly.
branch 2.0:
missing arches: If possible, we need more `make check' reports.
Am working on two.
Somebody needs to
Missed that one reading the first time..
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:24:25PM CET:
3. Try and recruit some people to translate the docs?
I think there is already a GNU translation project to take care of that.
We just need to figure out what the process is :-)
3.5.
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 04:29:37PM CET:
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 02:46:09PM CET:
I just want to get some possibilities out there into the ether. Feel free
to add more bits/say which bits are silly.
branch 2.0:
I would like to see one arch
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 09:53:37AM CET:
Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bob Automake can at least keep its part of the house in order by ensuring
Bob the correct library install order within the same Makefile. It does
Bob build the libraries
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 05:37:19PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:25:11PM CET:
Gah, perl? Blech. XML? Bah! Choke...
There... I've got it off my chest, and feel much better now :-)
/me agrees on everything you
* Scott James Remnant wrote on Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 04:43:48PM CET:
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 14:24 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
6. Absorb the functionality of the aberration called pkg-config. Libtool
already has all the information it needs, we just need to teach it (or
maybe a
[ slightly reformatted ]
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 08:31:15PM CET:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Noah Misch wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 12:28:24PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
The problem is that Automake does *not* know the dependency graph of
each object. Within one
I've been away for a few days..
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:44:19PM CET:
Scott James Remnant wrote:
They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
a needed-following link loader.
That's a good idea, if we know the linker can find deplibs
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 01:11:26PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:44:19PM CET:
Scott James Remnant wrote:
They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
a needed-following link loader.
That's
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 02:46:09PM CET:
I just want to get some possibilities out there into the ether. Feel free
to add more bits/say which bits are silly.
Post 2.0:
glibc HEAD NEWS has:
|
| Namespaces in ld.so are implemented. DSOs can be loaded in separate
|
* Sean Dague wrote on Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:45:40PM CET:
The issue I reported a couple weeks ago is still there. We have now tracked
down based on a number of versions of libtool to figure out what works and
what doesn't.
libtool 1.4.x - all versions work that we've tried
libtool 1.5.2 -
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:34:49PM CET:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
This solution does not seem to support the case where an actual
dependency exists but is not registered in the library (because the
user didn't supply it) so that the dynamic link loader doesn't know
* Howard Chu wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 10:29:04PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:34:49PM CET:
Also, what do we do about -rpath? We still need to encode the
runtime path to even the dropped deplib directories so that the
same library we
[ slightly reordered your answers for ease of consistent answers ]
* Sean Dague wrote on Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 05:56:11PM CET:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:20:05PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Sean Dague wrote on Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:45:40PM CET:
The issue I reported a couple weeks ago
* Jacob Meuser wrote on Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:00:28PM CET:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 03:01:06PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 10:51 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 03:45:10PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
It does assume that all library
* Jacob Meuser wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 01:07:20AM CET:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 11:00:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 11:15 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 03:02:55PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Actually, I'd say the opposite is
Hi Jeff,
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 03:00:22PM CET:
Some of the consumers of our software use the Portland Group compilers
(http://www.pgroup.com/). Libtool 1.5.x doesn't seem to recognize
these compilers, and therefore doesn't always do the Right Things.
Libtool
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:30:27PM CET:
Actually, before I attempt the LT 2.x patch, how does this look for the
1.5 patch? I checked pgcc, pgCC, pgf77, and pgf90, both in the 1.5
test suite (I assuming that configuring LT with CC=pgcc [etc.] and then
make check is what
* Sander Niemeijer wrote on Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 01:54:12PM CET:
I have send this question to the list about a month ago, but
unfortunately, there hasn't been an answer yet, and the release of
libtool 2.0 is not that far away (right?).
Hmm. We need to at least wait for the copyright issue
* Sander Niemeijer wrote on Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 11:00:13AM CET:
The practice:
If you think about what it is you need to know in these terms, you
should be able to figure out what libtool will do by looking at the
results of the LT_INIT configure time tests. If you can't, then try
to
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 07:20:01PM CET:
Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bob What I have now learned the hard way is that aclocal ignores the
Bob AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4]) definition in configure.ac.
IMHO it's a bug in whatever let you think
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 03:19:13PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 07:20:01PM CET:
Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bob What I have now learned the hard way is that aclocal ignores the
Bob
Hi Jeff,
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 08:12:43PM CET:
I'm working on the Portland Group compilers patch for both the libtool
CVS HEAD and the 1-5 branch (both are attached), and as suggested, am
trying to run the make check test suite against the CVS HEAD (it
passes on the
This is a draft on how to proceed with the link_all_deplibs problem.
The idea is to expose the complexity portably to the user.
The rationale is that people get bitten by this complexity anyway,
so there is little gain in hiding it. At the same time, systems
without needed-following linker should
* Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 11:53:25AM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[definitions]
my head is already swimming because dependent, dependency and
dependence all are very subtly different and have different
meanings in different contexts.
OK. Let's
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:18:14PM CET:
Ah -- excellent! I think someone said this (work in the branch-2-0
branch), but I ignored it and worked on the trunk because I foolishly
assumed that they were effectively the same
We are in the process of rewriting the testsuite.
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:31:26PM CET:
(I figured I'd start this in a different thread so that it would be
easy to find when searching; the patches are identical to what I
submitted before, but in the interest of tying this all up in one
thread...)
Good idea.
I've
* Paul Smith wrote on Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 01:18:48AM CET:
Hi all. I'm having a severe problem with libtool-ized packages, of
which there are more and more these days, in my environment. I'm
wondering if anyone here can suggest how I should proceed; whether
there's something in libtool that
Hi Scott, everybody else,
* Scott James Remnant wrote on Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:39AM CET:
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 10:19 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
needed-following linker:
A system with a needed-following linker has a means to record
dependencies on other libraries within a library
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 04:14:46PM CET:
Support dlmopen dladdr1 and dlinfo in libltdl [I totally disagree with
this one Ralf, libltdl is a portability library, none of these functions
enhance portability in any way]
Just throw this out then! I just mentioned them
* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:09:31PM CET:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Before Libtool version 2.2, the handling of inter-library
dependencies has ignored the fact that some system linkers are smart
enough to figure out the library
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 07:47:35PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:09:31PM CET:
My proposal: On systems with smart linker: for every interface
change, only update the set of libraries and programs exposed to
this change
* Daniel Reed wrote on Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 12:36:24AM CET:
On 2004-11-30T11:31-0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
) for multilib to be made available in branch-1-5 (possibly by incorporating
) .multilib2 into 1.5.12).
It's looking like I may be able to get current Libtool into the final RHEL 4
* Scott James Remnant wrote on Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 10:06:01AM CET:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 18:36 -0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
Is there any chance .multilib2 can be incorporated into 1.5.12? As written,
it simply causes libtool to ask gcc to find .la files if gcc is in use. It
should have no
I haven't come as far as I would have liked (rpath discussion is very
incomplete still), and I won't be responding for the next couple of
days, but here's my current version of the RFC (pasted info plus texinfo
source attached) for you to tear apart.
Thanks for all your valuable input so far,
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 12:18:47AM CET:
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Profound changes like this should not be introduced in a bug-fix branch.
So do you think it is okay for HEAD? I think Daniel would at least have
something to
* Daniel Reed wrote on Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 05:20:36PM CET:
On 2004-12-03T08:33+0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
) Technical issues with the patch:
) - Why is, after your patch, $found set twice before searching (is there a
) reason for this)?
Libtool seems to use the state $found
* Hebenstreit Michael wrote on Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:37:20AM CET:
I a problem and hope you can help me. I tried to debug a kde/korganizer
library in my home-dir, having installed the same package on the (linux)
system. This leads to the following situation
standard library:
* Bill Moseley wrote on Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 08:21:27PM CET:
Could someone explain what these are telling me -- and more
importantly, if they are indication of a problem?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/swish-e$ make distcheck /dev/null
libtool: install: warning: remember to run `libtool --finish
* Ross Boylan wrote on Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 09:22:34PM CET:
I have two libraries, both of which want to be the one that starts. I
assume they both define main, though I have not verified that. Both are
3rd party, non-libtool, libraries.
The C `main' function is defined in these libraries?
Hi Martin,
* Martin Waitz wrote on Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:50:42PM CET:
next request:
could libtool take a look at MAKEFLAGS and automatically use --silent
mode when 's' is included in the make flags?
That sounds like a good idea -- in principle.
At the moment I'm unconditionally using
Hi Ross,
First, thanks for your reports (and also your long reply to my deplibs
RFC; I'm afraid I won't have too much time working on that for a while,
but eventually someone will get to it).
* Ross Boylan wrote on Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:02:06PM CET:
It would be good if the documentation (I'm
[ slightly reordered ]
* Gary Kumfert wrote on Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:17:17AM CET:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Gary Kumfert wrote:
I'm tracking down an issue between Intel 8.1 and libtool 1.5.10.
It seems that libtool adds and crtbeginS.o crtendS.o files to
the link line for shared
* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 10:55:14PM CET:
From config/ltmain.m4sh (applies to 1.5 as well):
...
*snip*
...
Why enforce this only when $linkmode=prog? Why shouldn't the deplibs
additions in the above apply when creating libraries?
I'm trying to build
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 02:29:30PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
| So, how about this? Let's have Automake include $(LIBTOOLFLAGS) in
| their libtool invocation. The user can then use
| LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
|
| What do you think?
Forgetting the rest of you mail
Hi Gary,
* Gary Kumfert wrote on Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 01:23:06AM CET:
My configuration needs C, C++, Java, Python, F77, and F90
(called FC).
Wow!
Why did support for FC disappear from libtool.m4 in my
upgrade from 1.5.4 to 1.5.10?
Erm. Support for Python and FC has, to the best of my
* Bill Jones wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:59:40PM CET:
I am trying to link a shared library against a libtool convenience
library on an AMD opteron with libtool 1.5.10, automake 1.9, autoconf
2.59, and gcc-3.2.2 (SuSE Linux). If I use the normal method, that
works fine under RedHat on
Hi Tim,
* Tim Mooney wrote on Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 06:55:18PM CET:
I just built atk-1.9.0 (part of gtk+) on Friday, and ran into an issue
with versioning that's making me wonder what kind of problems we may
encounter in the future.
Atk's ABI hasn't changed in quite a while, and because of
Hi pete,
* pete wrote on Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 01:46:41AM CET:
Can someone please tell me why I keep getting this error?
libtool: unrecognized option `--tag=CC'
Unreproducable here.
What info do you need?
An example command line including full output.
libtool --version
ltmain.sh (GNU
[ reordered for readability ]
* pete wrote on Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 01:05:24PM CET:
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 10:42 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* pete wrote on Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 01:46:41AM CET:
Can someone please tell me why I keep getting this error?
libtool: unrecognized option `--tag
Hi Alexandre,
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:24:48PM CET:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 02:10:14PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
As your build also shows (I've deleted that because I could've guessed
it), the automatic rebuilding rules call `automake' again, which
* pete stagman wrote on Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 07:12:28PM CET:
I'm at work now but will try it when i get home.
From here I downloaded the package and extracted it. The ltmain.sh file
contained:
# Constants.
PROGRAM=ltmain.sh
PACKAGE=libtool
VERSION=1.4.3
TIMESTAMP= (1.922.2.111
Please don't reply above quotes -- thank you.
* pete wrote on Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:11:48PM CET:
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 20:00 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* pete stagman wrote on Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 07:12:28PM CET:
From here I downloaded the package and extracted it. The ltmain.sh
Hi Christopher,
* Christopher Mason wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 05:12:00PM CET:
Two questions:
I haven't fully grokked the issue regarding your first question.
Hope somebody beats me to it..
Your second question consist of several questions:
2) Is there a way to stop libtool from doing
Hi Elmar,
* Elmar Rudigier wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:31:22PM CET:
Using libtool on SunOS causes a lot of masseages like:
Usage: grep -hblcnsviw pattern file . . .
grep: illegal option -- e
grep: illegal option -- L
grep: illegal option -- /
grep: illegal option -- o
grep: illegal
[ reply to two bug reports ]
Hi Andreas and ,
I hope that is the right way to address you (this is the first time I
use cut'n'paste with UTF-8 proper, plus I can barely decipher cyrillic).
*wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2005
at 01:48:06PM CET:
Am I right, that there is no way to pass additional
Hi Gary,
* Gary Kedziora wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:38:55PM CET:
Has anybody attempted a port to the X1?
I guess not, but unless UNICOS has changed much recently, all
that should be needed would be to add a
_LT_TAGVAR(ld_shlibs, $1)=no
under some suitable $host_os pattern matching
Hi Guido,
* Guido Draheim wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:54:27AM CET:
# Add /usr/xpg4/bin/sed as it is typically found on Solaris
# along with /bin/sed that truncates output.
for lt_ac_sed in $lt_ac_sed_list /usr/xpg4/bin/sed; do
- test ! -f $lt_ac_sed break
+ test ! -f $lt_ac_sed
Hi Christoph,
* Christoph Wellner wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:07:21PM CET:
i have trouble starting my application since I get undefined references.
As source I determined the variable link_all_deplibs_CXX wich is
explicitly set to 'no' in libtool.m4.
I'm running libtool-1.5.6 under
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 01:40:54PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
But current Libtool does use -version-script on linux if ld supports
it..
I just noticed this check in libtool.m4 while looking for something else. I
think that it should also be used for ELF
* Christoph Wellner wrote on Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 11:31:39AM CET:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:26:22 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could also tell us what specific problem you have encountered, so we
can warn against it or help you (the Debian maintainer usually reads
Christoph,
* Christoph Wellner wrote on Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:38:42PM CET:
Well, libA.la contains the information that it depends on libB. But I
still get the linker-error.
Perhaps it is important, that the libs are not 'installed' but stil in the
directory-tree of our source-code.
Hi Gary,
* Gary Kumfert wrote on Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:04:55AM CET:
There aren't two types of shared libraries... there's shared
and there's dynamic (or run time linked in AIX speak. hence -brtl.)
This I can mostly agree with.
Even then, the switch doesn't *really* care about the type...
One step toward integrating Linux multilib support, but a Libtool
requirement independent of that goal, is comparison of normalized
paths. In a nutshell, I'd like to be able to decide that
../foo/../lib
../lib
are equal.
Unfortunately, libtool so far has neither required its input to be
Hi Christoph,
* Christoph Wellner wrote on Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:46:31AM CET:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:03:46 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please provide a small recipe how we can reproduce what you are doing,
or at least post the rules you use to create your libraries
Hi Gary,
* Gary Kedziora wrote on Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 10:22:52PM CET:
Thanks for the help. I'm not sure which config.guess I was using the
other day, but now I had to look for one. I found one in the X1 system
autoconf/share directories that printed out 'craynv-cray-unicosmp2.5.X'.
That
Sorry, forgot that question last time.
* Gary Kedziora wrote on Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 10:22:52PM CET:
I'm using libtool-1.5.10. Do you think this is a system set-up
problem or does libtool no longer support Cray?
No, libtool has not intentionally dropped Cray support.
Either nobody
* zaufi wrote on Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:19:28PM CET:
I'm trying to use ltdl library in multi-threaded (POSIX threads) environment.
Unfortunately the manual does not supply enough information on that topic.
Can anybody please provide an example code that would load a dynamic library
in
* Christoph Wellner wrote on Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:08:28PM CET:
*snip*
I attached the files you requested.
Thanks. Can you do a favor for me: add
-Xlinker --no-add-needed
to LDFLAGS on build, i.e., run
path/to/configure [OPTIONS]
with the options you used before, then use
make
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:10:34PM CET:
* Christoph Wellner wrote on Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:08:28PM CET:
...
Thanks. Can you do a favor for me: add
-Xlinker --no-add-needed
to LDFLAGS on build
Never mind. Debian's binutils does not support that option yet
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:03:35PM CET:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Am I right, that there is no way to pass additional linker flags when
doing partial linking?
Yes, as of now. Consider it a bug.
Is partial linking a documented libtool feature
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 05:16:03PM CET:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Simon Perreault wrote:
I am using libtool+automake+autoconf to build my library. Everything builds
fine without warnings or errors and I end up with a nice shared library.
However, that library is missing
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:39:46AM CET:
I have attached a small script, and encourage
people to test it on all their shells they can find on their systems.
It should reveal at least one working echo, and, in most cases, find
builtins to do the job.
and here
Which systems do actually need libtool's --fallback-echo?
(You can
grep -i '^echo=.*fallback-echo' libtool
to find out).
I would like to kill it, that would clean up initialization a bit.
Of those machines, which ones would have problems with this replacement:
(be it input size limitation,
Hi Kevin,
(It'd be great if you could enable your mailer to wrap long text lines.)
* Kevin F. Quinn wrote on Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:18:57AM CET:
Thanks people; I understand (now) that libtool supports many targets,
each with their own compilers. I guess that means the question
becomes, why
* Alexandre Oliva wrote on Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 01:05:59AM CET:
On Jan 27, 2005, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which systems do actually need libtool's --fallback-echo?
Probably ones that didn't support shell functions either. I don't
recall exactly which systems required
Does anyone have time and access and is willing to try out branch-1-5
Libtool on just-released Solaris 10 within the next couple of days?
It'd be great if we could integrate any necessary (simple) patches
before releasing 1.5.12 (due this weekend).
Testing either of branch-2-0 and HEAD of
* Patrick Pélissier wrote on Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 03:03:32PM CET:
How to configure libtool so that it doesn't run C++ / Fortran tests if
the library is a C library, and so doesn't need a C++ / fortran
compiler? The project uses the other autotools and is a C library. I
haven't found this in
[ please forgive the webmailer messing up the lines ]
Peter O'Gorman writes:
I'm not really too knowledgable of the problem space. What are the
problems with multilib? Is it just that libtool searches the wrong
libdirs?
That's one of them.
Libtool aims out to do the same thing the linker
* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:33:39AM CET:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:19:02AM +0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Albert Chin wrote:
| On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:23:44PM -0600, Albert Chin wrote:
|
| Ok, this sucks. -no_prelink causes other problems. The SGI compiler
| leaves
Hi Jeff,
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:07:11AM CET:
Can I impose on the good will of a libtool wizard? I could attempt
this myself, but I don't have a good track record mucking around in the
LT source. ;-)
Not true. But let's see what we can do..
Here's the
Sorry to self-followup. Another thing came to mind:
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 05:10:31PM CET:
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:07:11AM CET:
You must now do an extra pre-link step to instantiate all the templates
used in this library, putting all
* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:33:39AM CET:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:19:02AM +0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Albert Chin wrote:
| On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:23:44PM -0600, Albert Chin wrote:
|
| Ok, this sucks. -no_prelink causes other problems. The SGI compiler
| leaves
* Albert Chin wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:21:58PM CET:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:10:35AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:33:39AM CET:
That won't help. After you copy over the .ii files, you must modify
them. I have a solution but I'm
Slooowly cycling through the list..
* Alexandre Oliva wrote on Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 01:05:59AM CET:
On Jan 27, 2005, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which systems do actually need libtool's --fallback-echo?
Probably ones that didn't support shell functions either.
Nope
instantiation directories for each
library.
2. You should always clean the Template.dir with any
changes to the associated library templates.
Thank you for this information.
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Mar 7, 2005, at 3:07 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Achive or build the shared library
Hi Robert,
* Robert Ögren wrote on Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:11:00PM CET:
I looked through the TODO thread from 2004-11 and saw some talk about
speeding up libtool. I'm particularly interested in improved compilation
speed on Cygwin (Windows). Is there any progress on this?
For the HEAD
Hi Tor,
* Tor Lillqvist wrote on Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:32:41AM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
Linking is a problem, though: shell wrappers break,
I have never liked (or understood...) libtool's shell wrappers or its
relinking on Win32. I always use --disable-static, I always run a
make
1 - 100 of 3712 matches
Mail list logo
