On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 03:01:06PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 10:51 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 03:45:10PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > It does assume that all library dependencies are registered, yes. This > > > has never been a problem, because we've never found any Libtool-produced > > > library that doesn't have all dependencies registered. > > > > > > If this isn't the case, and at one time Libtool never registered all of > > > the dependencies, we should check for that. Otherwise I don't see the > > > need -- we can assume sanity from our own output. > > > > for a long time, libtool did not handle -pthread properly. > > > It still doesn't, the current situation is a botch that produces the > right results but does it in the wrong way. Libraries should record > what compiler/linker flags they need (-pthread is not a dependency > library).
record how? in the dependency_libs section of an .la file? you seem to be saying no, so then where? > > I can point to at least a few .la files on my system that do > > not have -pthread or even other required libraries registered. > > > I'd be quite shocked if the current version of Libtool produces > libraries with -pthread in dependency_libs; I specifically wrote the > patch to prevent that, because it causes a lot of problems. if -pthread is needed but missing, then I get errors about missing symbols, much like if a library is missing from the link command. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Scott > -- > Have you ever, ever felt like this? > Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? > _______________________________________________ > Libtool mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
