On 2013-11-08 20:07, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 11/8/2013 1:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Isn't it because libtool wants to control the order of the linking and
assure that all dependencies (including static) are tracked/known and
applied at the correct times? It wants to assure that static
Hi!
I noticed this while looking at the -nostdlib stuff. Will push
in a couple of days unless there are valid objections.
Cheers,
Peter
From 7efe9b28d977fccded55843c8bee3458835d0435 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Rosin p...@lysator.liu.se
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:00:28 +0100
Subject:
On 2013-11-11 10:37, Peter Rosin wrote:
Will push in a couple of days unless there are valid objections.
Forget it. I am a moron. It would be more valid to simply remove
the GXX=no assignment, but I can't classify that as a bug. Sorry
for wasting your bandwidth.
Cheers,
Peter
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Peter Rosin wrote:
Quite a lot of effort went into making this work the way it currently does.
I realize that, but if it really works or not is a different question :-)
Yes, of course. It is obviously primarily working as demonstrated by
the massive amount of software
Well, figured it out.
I had this in configure.ac:
m4_define([release], [1])
This breaks the definition of dlname in the .la file libtool produces.
2013/11/3 Edscott Wilson edscott.wilson.gar...@gmail.com
I've read through the libtool manual and google'd around, but the
following has me
