On 11/7/07, Renaud Detry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 07 Nov 2007, at 11:35, Salvatore Iovene wrote: > > > On 11/7/07, Renaud Detry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On 07 Nov 2007, at 11:04, Salvatore Iovene wrote: > >> > >>> On 11/7/07, Renaud Detry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 07 Nov 2007, at 09:59, Salvatore Iovene wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 11/7/07, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> On Nov 7, 2007 2:12 AM, Salvatore Iovene > >>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> I'm not 100% sure this is really a CMake related question, but > >>>>>>> I'll > >>>>>>> fire it up anyway: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm building a series of static libraries, name them liba.a, > >>>>>>> libb.a > >>>>>>> and libc.a, and linking them into a shared library libfoo.so. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Then I'm building libx.a liby.a and libz.a and linking them > >>>>>>> into the > >>>>>>> shared libbar.so. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Then I have an executable whatever.exe that's linked to to > >>>>>>> libfoo.so > >>>>>>> and libbar.so. The linking of the executable fails > >>>>>>> complaining of > >>>>>>> certain missing simbols. Some symbols from liba.a are missing in > >>>>>>> libbar.so. > >>>> > >>>> Let's say that there's a symbol S in liba.a, that S is the only > >>>> symbol > >>>> in its object, and that S is not used by libfoo. In Darwin, S will > >>>> not > >>>> be included in libfoo, and the result you get is expectable. I > >>>> don't > >>>> know if this simple explanation translates to Linux. > >>> > >>> I don't know either, but that seems to be the case. Any ideas on > >>> how to fix it? > >> > >> IMHO, you shouldn't use symbols from liba in libbar if libbar doesn't > >> link against liba. > >> > >> I think you could do either of > >> > >> 1.- make all your static libs dynamic, and link libbar against > >> liba if > >> libbar uses symbols from liba. > >> > >> 2.- link neither libfoo nor libbar to liba, but link whatever.exe to > >> liba. This will require an extra flag about undefined symbols > >> under Darwin, but I don't think ld will complain under Linux. > >> > >> Option (1) seems far nicer to me. > >> > >> Hope this helps. > >> Renaud. > > > > Thanks. Your options seem very reasonable. The thing is, though, that > > the various liba, libb, libc were meant to be only used to build a > > bigger library called libfoo. > > Then why don't you build all objects from foo, a, b, c to be PIC and > pack them all together in foo? Or if you really want intermediate > archives, maybe you can build the objects of a, b, c to be PIC, > archive them in .a archives, and use ld to put them together. But this > is not the same thing as linking foo to a, b, c using gcc and -la -lb > -lc, which means to only fetch needed symbols. > > The bottom line is, what you mean to do is probably not very common, > and I don't think there will be a high-level CMake primitive that will > do that for you. > > This is just my opinion though :-)
What do you mean by PIC? Thanks! -- Salvatore Iovene http://www.iovene.com/ Key Fingerprint: 5647 944D D5AD 2E87 00B4 7D54 2864 359D FF20 16D8 _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
