On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 08:41:38AM +0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jacob Meuser wrote: > | > | Thorsten's statement is somewhat misleading. you can definitely link > | libraries and dlopened modules against libraries without having all > | those libraries linked directly to the executable. > | > | but, there was something of a policy decision made to not link libraries > | against eachother. actually, this policy is somewhat under debate, and > | the runtime linker is getting a bit of a reworking ... > | > | as far as why -lstdc++ is not always used, I can't find the reason ATM, > | but I do remember some discussion of that at some point. maybe it's > | possible that -lstdc++ is not always necessary for each and every g++ > | link command? > | > | knowing that not always using -lstdc++ was a conscious decision, I would > | really consider libtool adding -lstdc++ to be a bug. > | > > Well, we need to find a solution to the original poster's problem (runtime > loading a c++ library from a C application), and I don't see another way to > do that.
just add -lstdc++ manually. trust me, that works fine. I really don't see why libtool should be adding this automatically. is it _always_ needed? what about -lsupc++? -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
