Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues <at> gmx.de> writes:
>
> * John Brown wrote on Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 01:27:42PM CEST:
>
> It is how libtool currently works. Period.
I understand.
> There may be something to
> discuss whether this is the best imaginable solution, but not whether
> this is how it currently works.
As I said, I don't agree with the way it works, but you are the experts.
>
> > It looks like discrimination against users of the evil M$ O/S ,
>
...
> As long
> as I have done Libtool maintenance, more than a third of the work has
> been devoted to w32 systems alone.
>
I humbly apologize. It works, and it really helps the situation a lot. The only
other thing that I do not like is when it adds the '-<number>' suffix, but that
is another topic.
> Note that with some luck, you can just pass
> -no-undefined
> to libtool on about any system. At least with C, there should be few
> issues. (Not so sure about C++.)
An excellent reason why a flag should not be necessary, but I yield.
>
> > Just for my information:
> >
> > I gather that on Linux, you *can* create a shared library with
> > undefined symbols.
>
> Yes.
Running 'nm --undefined-only libamrnb-2.dll' gives:
U ___crt_xc_end__
U ___crt_xc_start__
U ___crt_xi_end__
U ___crt_xi_start__
U ___crt_xl_start__
U ___crt_xp_end__
U ___crt_xp_start__
U ___crt_xt_end__
U ___crt_xt_start__
U ___tls_end__
U ___tls_start__
U __end__
If undefined symbols are not allowed, then what's that?
_______________________________________________
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
