[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: MAC OS X, static compilation and libtool

From: George Bosilca
Subject: Re: MAC OS X, static compilation and libtool
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:52:03 -0400


Right, I will do it only for static libraries. In the case of dynamic libraries, it looks like everything is handled just fine, even the OS X linker do the right thing. Additionally, we cannot have the absolute rpath in our software (in distributed environments the libraries can be installed on different locations).


On Mar 18, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

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).


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

reply via email to

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