Hi, Ralf thanks very much for this speedy response.
> Do you know whether -xar is safe to use for shared libraries? > A quick glance at the docs does not reveal any clue to me. I have too limited Solaris experience to answer that, but from what I see now it's probably not a good idea. I can see now, that just doing this CC -G -nolib -hlibXrdSec.so.0 -o .libs/libXrdSec.so.0.0.0 .libs/XrdSecClient.o .libs/XrdSecPManager.o .libs/XrdSecProtocolhost.o .libs/XrdSecServer.o ../XrdOuc/.libs/libXrdOuc.a ../XrdNet/.libs/libXrdNet.a ... without any kind of -QOptions also does the job (and this was actually used in the build system of the project which I am currently moving to autotools). I have dicovered some old mails on you list about the introduction of the QOptions with allextract, but it was in another context. > I've started to work on supporting template libs better in Libtool. > The CVS HEAD version has a couple of improvements, but so far only for > the PGI compiler. It seems, all template instantiation methods other > than GCC's lack some flexibility in order to be used successfully with > Libtool. > > If a way can be found to make it work with SUN Forte, I'd be happy to > put it in HEAD. Great. Thanks. > Meanwhile, can I ask a favor of you? We've changed the code for > -no-undefined on Solaris, and I'd like a test with a real-world example > C++ package before I release 1.5.20 this weekend. Could you try it (or > point me to the package you're compiling so I can)? I could send you a > bootstrapped Libtool tarball (off-list) if you like. Sure. I'll try to do it tomorrow morning or tonight. The bootstrapped Libtool tarball would be easiest for me. What should I do to test it? Cheers, Derek _______________________________________________ Bug-libtool mailing list Bug-libtool@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-libtool