bug-libtool
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Bugreport: Incorrect forwarding of a shared library's -R flags when


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Bugreport: Incorrect forwarding of a shared library's -R flags when this library is linked to an executable
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:14:27 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-10-28)

Hello Stefan,

please don't top-post; thanks.

* Stefan Muller wrote on Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:52:36PM CET:
> Thanks for picking up the issue. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to
> simply prevent the -R flags from propagating on ALL systems arguing that the
> linker on SOME systems might not understand it, for two reasons:
> 
> (1) It breaks the linking of the final executables on systems that
> understand the -R flag (if the user wants to use -R to resolve secondary
> dependences of a library that the executables depend upon)
> (2) On systems that don't understand -R, the problem would already appear
> when the user tries to use -R to link the library. So preventing -R from
> propagating never fixes anything.

I didn't mean to say that not propagating -R was the right thing; but
understanding first why some change was made in the past can help avoid
regressions.

In other uses of -R libtool does the right thing and translates it to
the linker-specific way of spelling "add this directory to the run
path".  The right fix to this bug is probably to ensure that this
happens here as well, for -R paths read from deplib's $dependency_libs.

> I can't think of a scenario where one would want libtool to suppress the
> propagation of -R flags: Users who don't want to use -R wouldn't have used
> it to link their libraries in the first place, right?

I can think of it.  Many users/distros don't like run paths embedded in
their programs or libraries.  In this case, a fix could cause a -R path
stemming from a third-party library (they never compiled themselves)
that they link to, to propagate to their compiled output.  That's not
much different from not wanting to link against indirect deplibs.

Cheers,
Ralf




reply via email to

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