Nick Hudson wrote:
>
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 6, 2001, Bryce McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps it would suffice to simply clear "wl" when entering the
> > > incremental mode, assuming we know the linker will always be called
> > > directly when doing incrementa
Hi Guys,
I tried an experiment that failed. dlopen is documented
as invoking _init when linking is complete and dlclose
as calling _fini. So, I went and tried to use this feature.
Unfortunately, when I invoked gcc as the linker, it decided
to forcibly include a couple of no-op routines by the
Bruce Korb writes:
> Is there supposed to be a way to tell GCC/collect2/ld to
> let me supply my own _init and _fini routines?
ld -init NAME -fini NAME
> Or, am I required to have a pre-determined external name that I must
> reference? If so, what is the point of _init? *sigh*.
Actually, if y
Hi Bruce,
On Friday 09 March 2001 5:15 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Korb writes:
> > Is there supposed to be a way to tell GCC/collect2/ld to
> > let me supply my own _init and _fini routines?
>
> ld -init NAME -fini NAME
>
> > Or, am I required to have a pre-determined external name that
Hi Edward,
Your patch is brilliant. Thankyou. I need to build a cygwin installation
before I can test it, but by inspection it looks fine to me. This stuff is
all I have left on my Libtool TODO list: As soon as we have it committed,
I'd like to make a candidate release for libtool-1.4 so t
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 04:08:14AM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>Your patch is brilliant. Thankyou.
Ditto. This patch is much appreciated. Thank you, Edward.
cgf
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libto
On Mar 9, 2001, Bryce McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My preferred solution is for libtool to stop doing silly tests!
Agreed.
> (there has never been a GCJ that doesn't support "-c -o"), but don't
> think Oliva liked that idea. Ideally we could put a flag in
> ltcf-gcj.sh that tells it n
