Michael Matz wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Nick Hudson wrote:
>
> > Having need_lib_prefix to yes does allow modules to be linked into
>> libraries and binaries, but again this is counter intuitive as
>> libraries are linked in not modules.
>
>I agree in some way. But libtool's purpose is to behave everywhere the
>same way (as circumstances permit), and as on some platforms modules can
>be linked...
As you mention, some platforms allow this, others don't. The purpose
of libtool in my eyes is to provide a common denominator for as much
platforms as possible.
> > I would agree with Alexandre and say that libtool should issue a warning or
>> error if something attempt's to link in a module.
>
>But on many systems this is allowed, so an error would seem strange.
Well, there _are_ systems where linking in modules as if they were
shared libraries is not only not allowed, but impossible. One example
is Darwin (a.k.a. the open-sourced, BSD- and Mach-based kernel of Mac
OS X). It uses the Mach-O file format, which differentiates between
shared libraries (file type MH_DYLIB) and modules (file type
MH_BUNDLE). Only the libraries can be linked against and only the
modules can be dlopen()'ed.
>And
>given, that libtool can mimic this behaviour also on platforms needing lib
>prefix, why should it barf? OK, I also have another reason ;) : If
>libtool would prevent modules from being linked into executables, we would
>link many of our (KDE-) modules two time (as modules and as lib), thereby
>doubling the binary size, for no good reason (and all the Makefile.am
>would need fixing, doh ;) )
Hmmm, and I had hoped porting KDE to Darwin would be easy...
-chrisp
--
chrisp a.k.a. Christoph Pfisterer "Any sufficiently advanced
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://chrisp.de bug is indistinguishable
PGP key & geek code available from a feature."
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
