Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> writes: > * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 05:01:18AM CEST:
>> Is someone here willing to contribute a portable m4 macro which tests >> the compiler (and/or linker) to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that >> it adequately supports the implicit linkage required? The tests should >> work for more than Linux and should be based on observed behavior. > Is support in Debian full now? Do dlopen'ed modules that have indirect > dependencies outside of default-searched library paths get loaded > correctly now, with DT_RPATH entries only pointing to direct deplibs > (and recursively for their DT_RPATH entries)? This particular scenario I've not checked personally. I never use non-default-searched library paths for anything. I certainly agree that libtool needs to support that case, though. dlopened modules are something of a special case; it's one of the places where Debian may not remove *.la files depending on the specific situation. -- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
