[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: shlibpath.at may need -no-undefined

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: shlibpath.at may need -no-undefined
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:41:26 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-15)

Hello Roumen,

* Roumen Petrov wrote on Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 03:26:47PM CEST:
> It seems to me that test shlibpath.at require -no-undefined flag to
> generated shared libraries on windows platforms, i.e. something as
> "LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -no-undefined" at begining.
> As the currently test don't work in cross-environment ( replated to
> PATH variable) I could not propose a patch.

I really appreciate you reporting bugs and sending patches (along with
all other people who do so, and who constantly receive less attention on
this list than they deserve  :-/ ), but can you please get into the
habit of never writing "it doesn't work" without any proof?  I mean, if
you've already tried it out, then it should be easy for you to copy and
paste the failing command and the error message, no?  That would save me
quite a bit of time; even if you don't analyze the error at all.  In
fact, copy-n-paste of the message is often more important than the error
analysis done.  Thanks.

Anyway, this test definitely needs -no-undefined.  When I add that,
however, the test fails like this under native MinGW:

++ eval test -n '"$PATH"'
+++ test -n 
 Technologies/ATI Control 
++ sep=:
++ eval 'PATH=$addpath$sep$PATH'
 Technologies/ATI Control 
++ export PATH
++ test yes '!=' no
++ lt_exe=./m
++ test -f ./m.exe
++ lt_exe=./m.exe
++ set +x
../../libtool/tests/shlibpath.at:67: if "$lt_exe" ; then :; else lt_status=$?;  
   test $lt_status != 0 &&         test "X$host" != "X$build" && test -x 
"$lt_exe" && exit 77;     exit $lt_status; fi
++ ./m.exe
++ lt_status=57
++ test 57 '!=' 0
++ test Xi686-pc-mingw32 '!=' Xi686-pc-mingw32
++ exit 57

along with popup windows noting that the "a" symbol wasn't found in the

AFAICS this is due to the wrapper executable adding paths for us.
I think we need to change the test to only try out an installed program,
but I'm not quite sure yet.

I'm not sure how to make the test run smoothly in a cross compile setup
(but pursuing that further should come after going through the pending
cross compile patches).


reply via email to

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