[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: portability of -L<relative_directory_name>

From: Roumen Petrov
Subject: Re: portability of -L<relative_directory_name>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:01:33 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20080212 SeaMonkey/1.1.8

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Bruno,

* Bruno Haible wrote on Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 02:51:08PM CET:
A while ago someone said that if in a build directory I have a (not yet
installed) ../lib/libfoo.la, to link with this library I should *not* use

   libtool ... -L../lib -lfoo

but rather mention the .la file explicitly:

   libtool ... -L../lib ../lib/libfoo.la
   libtool ... ../lib/libfoo.la

You should use the last one, none of the others.

Is it true that references to non-yet-installed libool libraries should not be
made with -l? If so, it would be worth to document this in the libtool
documentation. I didn't find it there.

Quoting info libtool "Linking executables":

   (1) However, you should avoid using `-L' or `-l' flags to link
against an uninstalled libtool library.  Just specify the relative path
to the `.la' file, such as `../intl/libintl.la'.  This is a design
decision to eliminate any ambiguity when linking against uninstalled
shared libraries.

This has been documented for eons.


What about same(similar) footnote to be added in section libtool "Linking libraries" ?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]