On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:39:36PM -0600, Albert Chin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:01:26PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Albert Chin wrote: > > > > >When using the compiler to perform the link and linking against > > >convenience libraries, is there any reason to link explicitly against > > >the extracted objects of the convenience libraries rather than just > > >the .a file? I'm running into a problem on IRIX with the SGI C++ > > >compiler that is solved if I link the .a files. I see no reason why we > > >extract the convenience libraries libraries when linking against the > > >compiler v. the linker. > > > > If we link against the .a file directly then the only objects which > > will get pulled in are the ones required to link (resolve symbols). > > This means that much of the library may be missing. > > > > If we are building an application it is desirable to shed unnecessary > > objects but it is not desirable to do that for libraries. > > What if we use $whole_archive_flag_spec? > > Are the following equivalent on Linux? > 1. ld -soname libfoo.so 1.o 2.o 3.o [all .o's from lib1.a] \ > [all .o's from lib2.a] > 2. ld -soname libfoo.so 1.o 2.o 3.o \ > --whole-archive lib1.a lib2.a -no-whole-archive > > If so, then we should be able to use $whole_archive_flag_spec in lieu > of extracting everything.
Sorry, this is already used when creating shared libraries. -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
