On 6/23/2011 11:03 AM, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:24:35 -0500 (CDT) Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>
> BF> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> BF> >
> BF> > I.e. it created a shared library with undefined symbols without any
> BF> > problems because it never actually passed
Den 2011-06-23 14:25 skrev Vadim Zeitlin:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:12:42 +0200 Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> PR> Den 2011-06-23 11:22 skrev Vadim Zeitlin:
> PR> > I have no idea whether -no-undefined is supposed to work like this but
> in
> PR> > any case it seems to me that it's perfectly useless rig
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
I.e. it created a shared library with undefined symbols without any
problems because it never actually passed -no-undefined to g++/ld.
In actual practice, it seems difficult or impossible to build programs
under systems like Linux with -no-undefined.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:24:35 -0500 (CDT) Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
BF> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
BF> >
BF> > I.e. it created a shared library with undefined symbols without any
BF> > problems because it never actually passed -no-undefined to g++/ld.
BF>
BF> In actual practice, it s
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:12:42 +0200 Peter Rosin wrote:
PR> Den 2011-06-23 11:22 skrev Vadim Zeitlin:
PR> > I have no idea whether -no-undefined is supposed to work like this but in
PR> > any case it seems to me that it's perfectly useless right now. It's not
PR> > checked at all under normal Unix
Den 2011-06-23 11:22 skrev Vadim Zeitlin:
> Charles Wilson cwilson.fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>> On 6/21/2011 8:29 AM, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
>>> Charles Wilson writes:
No, I think --disable-static, if specified, should actually *disable
static*. That should be sufficient.
If it's
Vadim Zeitlin zeitlins.org> writes:
> And as this project build options also include "-std=c++0x",
> __STRICT_ANSI__ is defined. For the compiler I use it would be enough to
> add _CRTIMP in front of the declaration as this is how _putenv() is really
> declared in /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/m
Charles Wilson cwilson.fastmail.fm> writes:
> On 6/21/2011 8:29 AM, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> > Charles Wilson writes:
> >> No, I think --disable-static, if specified, should actually *disable
> >> static*. That should be sufficient.
> >>
> >> If it's not doing that, then it's a bug IMO.
> >
> >
