[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: MAC OS X, static compilation and libtool

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: MAC OS X, static compilation and libtool
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:09:07 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

Hello George,

* George Bosilca wrote on Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 03:07:09PM CET:
> As far as I see libtool internally do the right thing (all our  
> executables and tests compile correctly). The real problem seems to come 
> from the fact that we extract the libtool compilation and linking flags 
> in order to use them inside our wrapper, and that we use -l and -L 
> instead of the absolute path to the libraries.
> Peter email confirmed that we should use the full path to our libraries, 
> instead of expecting a specific behavior from the linker. I will replace 
> all (-l and -L) with the full path to our libraries, which definitively 
> looks like the cleanest approach.

Will you do this only for static libraries you link against?
Because for shared libraries, that can have unintended consequences on
some systems (e.g., absolute rpath entries like /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1).


reply via email to

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