Re: Libtool eats redundant link objects

[Sam TH]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 08:04:29PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2001, Sam TH <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:18:13AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> >> It seems this was fully intentional.  In fact, the code says
> >> 
> >> # Make sure that $var contains only unique libraries
> >> # and add them in reverse order
> 
> This is definitely wrong.  Thanks for spotting the problem.
> 
> > Is there any good reason to prevent people from doing this?  
>            
> The rationale was that it used to prevent correct linking because of
> excessively-long link command lines in certain cases.  Which doesn't
> make the dropping of duplicate libraries right, it just creates a
> different problem scenario.
> 
> Sam, would you please add a `break' just before the comment above, and
> see if it fixes the problem for you?
> 

I did this.  It does fix that problem.  

However, it has the following 2 problems (right offhand)

1.  It causes -lfoo portions of the line that are added by libtool to
be duplicated.  So my previously posted example ends up with 
-lm ./.libs/libfoo.a -lm ./.libs/libfoo.a 

2.  It causes the following 8 tests to fail.  (I don't think they
failed before.)

FAIL: depdemo-make.test
FAIL: depdemo-make.test
FAIL: depdemo-exec.test
FAIL: depdemo-inst.test
FAIL: link.test
FAIL: depdemo-make.test
FAIL: depdemo-exec.test
FAIL: depdemo-inst.test

That's in order.   

        sam th               
        address@hidden
        http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
        GnuPG Key:  
        http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key

pgpzsMGLuvaeO.pgp
Description: PGP signature