On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:38:48 +0100 Peter Rosin wrote:
PR> On 2016-02-12 21:59, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
PR> > Peter Rosin writes:
PR> >> On 2016-02-11 00:38, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
PR> >>> It indicates that the build configuration has agreed to supply any
PR> >>> additional dependency libraries if th
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:38:15 +0100 Peter Rosin wrote:
PR> On 2016-02-12 22:12, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
PR> > Several concrete questions in this thread asking for any benefits of the
PR> > current libtool behaviour went unanswered, but let me try once again
PR> > nevertheless: do you see any useful
On 2/10/16, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:29:40 -0500 Nick Bowler wrote:
> NB> On 2/10/16, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> NB> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Peter Rosin wrote:
> NB> >> I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that --disable-static
> NB> >> should end up in a failure and not some
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:29:40 -0500 Nick Bowler wrote:
NB> On 2/10/16, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
NB> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Peter Rosin wrote:
NB> >> I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that --disable-static should end
NB> >> up in a failure and not somehow degrade to a static build anyway. I
NB>
On 2/9/16, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:44:24 -0500 Nick Bowler wrote:
> NB> Here's the thing. Libtool is, by default, designed to transparently
> NB> support the case where building a shared library is not possible.
>
> This is, IMO, an obsolete principle to follow. I admit it m
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:02:25 +0100 Peter Rosin wrote:
PR> You appear confused (as almost everybody else) about what -no-undefined
PR> means to libtool. The confusion stems from(?) the similarly named linker
PR> option, --no-undefined, which apparently does what people expect from
PR> the libtool
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 21:18:42 -0600 (CST) Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
BF> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
BF> >
BF> > 2. Enabling this option is not enough as you must also painstakingly add
BF> > -no-undefined to all LDFLAGS. Why does libtool need to force you to do
BF> > it instead of ju
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
Sorry but this is just not true for the MSW DLLs. If the libtool user
tries to build a DLL, you can safely assume that it will not have undefined
symbols. Anything else just doesn't make sense because it would always
result in an error. Again, this is di
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:44:24 -0500 Nick Bowler wrote:
NB> On 2/9/16, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
NB> > I'd like to create Windows binaries for my software from Linux, which
NB> > includes creating a couple of DLLs and EXEs that use them. This is not too
NB> > difficult to do with just manual makefiles a