* Christian Biesinger wrote on Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:40:40PM CEST:
Brian Dessent wrote:
So yes, you need to either use -no-undefined unconditionally, or
conditionalized on PE targets.
What's the point of doing this only on PE targets? Surely the library
will either have undefined symbols
Hello Bob, Max, all,
* Bob Rossi wrote on Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:26:25AM CEST:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:12:49PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
Is there any way that I can have libtool simply create a dll with the
new 'pcre.dll' instead of 'libpcre-0.dll'? Otherwise, I'll have to code
into
Hi,
John Brown wrote:
I gather that on Linux, you *can* create a shared library with undefined
symbols.
Indeed.
1) Why would anyone do that intentionally?
To link against another library, or to import a symbol defined by the
main program or a library loaded by the main program before. The
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 10:04:12AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Bob, Max, all,
* Bob Rossi wrote on Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:26:25AM CEST:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:12:49PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
Is there any way that I can have libtool simply create a dll with the
new
Hello,
I'm a novice user of the GNU autotools trying to create the appropriate
configuration for a small simulation library I'm writing, called Minga.
From web tutorials, and examining configure.ac and Makefile.am files in
other free software projects, I've been able to put together something
Hi!
In cvs head, the last change in libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh
broke linking on MacOSX.
I want to link against -framework ApplicationServices -framework Cocoa
-framework Carbon
What I get is this:
powerpc-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1: ApplicationServices.ltframework: No such file
or directory
Hello Christoph,
* Christoph Egger wrote on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 10:36:29AM CEST:
In cvs head, the last change in libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh
broke linking on MacOSX.
Darn. Thanks for the report.
I want to link against -framework ApplicationServices -framework Cocoa
-framework
Hi Gary, and sorry for the delay,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 05:18:09PM CEST:
On 28 Apr 2007, at 09:04, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Repeating the above question: OK to apply? If not, then ok to revert
the 2007-03-29, 2007-03-26 changes?
Certainly. In light of our new
