In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2004, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Isn't there some objdump incantation that will differentiate between PIC
> > and non-PIC objects?
>
> Nope.
Indeed, and I couldn't find anyth
On Sep 13, 2004, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't there some objdump incantation that will differentiate between PIC
> and non-PIC objects?
Nope.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free
On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 11:31 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I'm all for having Libtool tell you that you can't link non-PIC code
> into a shared library on platforms that don't support that -- but that
> needs to be done by actually checking you're trying to do that, rather
> than using an inco
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 14:55 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2004, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What happens when the shared library you're happily linking with
> > contains non-PIC code?
>
> It doesn't matter. When you link with a shared library, you only get
On Sep 13, 2004, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simply looking at what kind of library you're linking against isn't
> sufficient.
Agreed.
>> Listing a non-shared library as a dependency of a libtool library is
>> not the right approach to create a shared library with libtool.
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Isn't there some objdump incantation that will differentiate between PIC
and non-PIC objects?
If so, then we should add a new deplibs_check_method=objdump, and use that
for as many hosts as we are able.
Even if this does not work, we could have a shell function to decide if a
Hi Alexandre, Scott!
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 04:24 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>I realize you're trying to be pragmatic here, and trying to find the
>>simplest solution for the big problem at hand, but I don't think
>>that's the right way to run a project. You should
On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 04:24 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2004, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The alternative method (file) isn't reliable enough, and consistently
> > fails for huge numbers of shared libraries (such as GTK+).
>
> How does it fail in the cases
On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 04:09 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2004, "Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I could revert this patch, but it would not do what you want. As you
> > can see it was already pass_all on all linux variants before this
> > patch, it just didn't look
9 matches
Mail list logo
