Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Feb 15, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Feb 14, 2000, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > 2) remove doubled base libraries to libraries.
> >>
> >> >> This can't be done in general. It has already been debated to death
> >> >> in this mailing list. Please search the archives.
> >>
> >> > I'm very much aware of these discussions. But mine are all -no-undefined
> >> > and that isn't the general case.
> >>
> >> Why would -no-undefined make any difference in this case?
>
> > When I remember right, the discussions were about -la -lb -la
> > where they satisfy each other's symbols. You didn't want to
> > forbid that, which is ok. But my -lb says it's completly defined,
> > so basicly every library libb depends on doesn't make any sense
> > _before_ -lb including libb itself.
>
> It does make sense if another, say libx, possibly incomplete, links
> with liba too, and pulls symbols from it that are also defined in
> libb. If libtool omits the first `-la' in `-lx -la -lb -la', the
> executable will get symbols from -lb instead of from -la.
>
> This all assumes -la is a static library. Should it be shared, we
> could hopefully drop multiple occurrences thereof, keeping only the
> last one.
>
I don't get it. If libb and liba define the same symbols, static linking
will fail anyway. If they define disjunct sets, libx will pull from liba
or from libb independent of the order. I must miss a point.
Greetings, Stephan
--
As long as Linux remains a religion of freeware fanatics,
Microsoft have nothing to worry about.
By Michael Surkan, PC Week Online
