Building 64-bit C++ shared libraries
libtool 1.5 has the following to pass the -m64 GCC flag through to the command building a C++ library: # gcc -m* arguments should be passed to the linker via $compiler_flags # in order to pass architecture information to the linker # (e.g. 32 vs 64-bit). This may also be accomplished via -Wl,-mfoo # but this is not reliable with gcc because gcc may use -mfoo to # select a different linker, different libraries, etc, while # -Wl,-mfoo simply passes -mfoo to the linker. -m*) This doesn't do anything for building 64-bit C++ libraries with the vendor C++ compiler. Do we need to do something similar? Or is it easier for us to say that if $LD == $CC for a tag, any unrecognized options are passed to $compiler_flags? -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Building 64-bit C++ shared libraries
[resending as this garnered no response] libtool 1.5 has the following to pass the -m64 GCC flag through to the command building a C++ library: # gcc -m* arguments should be passed to the linker via $compiler_flags # in order to pass architecture information to the linker # (e.g. 32 vs 64-bit). This may also be accomplished via -Wl,-mfoo # but this is not reliable with gcc because gcc may use -mfoo to # select a different linker, different libraries, etc, while # -Wl,-mfoo simply passes -mfoo to the linker. -m*) This doesn't do anything for building 64-bit C++ libraries with the vendor C++ compiler. Do we need to do something similar? Or is it easier for us to say that if $LD == $CC for a tag, any unrecognized options are passed to $compiler_flags? -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Building 64-bit C++ shared libraries
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Albert Chin wrote: > [resending as this garnered no response] Sorry about that. > libtool 1.5 has the following to pass the -m64 GCC flag through to the > command building a C++ library: > # gcc -m* arguments should be passed to the linker via $compiler_flags > # in order to pass architecture information to the linker > # (e.g. 32 vs 64-bit). This may also be accomplished via -Wl,-mfoo > # but this is not reliable with gcc because gcc may use -mfoo to > # select a different linker, different libraries, etc, while > # -Wl,-mfoo simply passes -mfoo to the linker. > -m*) > > This doesn't do anything for building 64-bit C++ libraries with the > vendor C++ compiler. Do we need to do something similar? Or is it > easier for us to say that if $LD == $CC for a tag, any unrecognized > options are passed to $compiler_flags? This does seem like a reasonable approach to me. At the time -m support was added, I believe that usually LD was not the same as CC. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
