Hi Peter, sorry for the delay. Peter Rosin wrote: > > [SNIP] > > Libtool normally puts objects related to shared libs in .libs so that they > don't clash with objects from the static libs. But if libtool isn't doing > any static libs, it puts the objects for the shared libs where it otherwise > would have put the objects for the static libs. I guess this change in > layout is what caused the original trouble? > Yes (at least that is how I've understood it).
> But that is perhaps best seen as an internal detail and we'd better not > optimize out the static-only build (i.e. perhaps optimizing it out on the > grounds that it doesn't add much coverage, but in the end not optimizing it > out because the optimization relies on an Libtool-internal detail that might > change). Besides, there might be some odd platform that only builds > shared libs by default, and in that case you do get increased coverage by > doing all three variants. > And that's why we continue to do the "threefold" test for the automatically selected depmode -- we should be quite safe on that front IMHO. > All in all, I think you proposed change is sane. I haven't actually tested > it, but what the hell, it looks good so go ahead. > OK, pushed. Thanks, Stefano