On Apr 1, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 01 April 2001 3:59 pm, Michael Matz wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> > Certainly for modern UNIX architectures, however, I get the impression
>> > from Alexandre that there are platforms which do require topologically
>> > ordered listings of shared libraries in the final link line in order to
>> > be able to
>> Hmm, Alexandre? Are there really platforms where this is the case for
>> shared libs?
I don't think so. To the best of my knowledge, ordering is only
relevant for static libraries. But then, shared-library oddities
don't cease to surprise me :-(
> It seems that even if there are, there is little option but to do
> platformwise duplicate removal if we are to avoid common problems with
> command line lengths.
Yep. I think I see a way around the problem. Shared libraries don't
need duplication (we hope), and static libraries can be included in
reloadable links (I hope).
Hmm... But if I static library is listed after a shared library, to
supply undefined symbols in the shared library, we can't reload the
static library disregarding the shared one then put the shared library
back in afterwards. It's not as simple as I had thought :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
