[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupda
From: |
Alexandre Oliva |
Subject: |
Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates] |
Date: |
05 Apr 2001 23:45:06 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) |
On Apr 5, 2001, "edward" <address@hidden> wrote:
> before: deplibs="-lfoo -lbar -lfoo -lfoo -lbar -lbar -lfoo"
> after: deplibs="-lbar -lfoo -lbar -lfoo"
> This cuts down on all the extraneous stuff *safely*, i think.
It can't be proven to be safe. Consider that libfoo and libbar are
static, such that:
libfoo defines f1, that calls f2
libbar defines f2, that calls f3
libfoo defines f3, that calls f4
libbar defines f4, that calls f5
libfoo defines f5
If you remove the first -lfoo, you'll get an `f4 undefined' error.
It's always safe to remove duplicates of a library when they're
consecutive, though.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
- RE: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cyg winupdates], Boehne, Robert, 2001/04/04
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates], edward, 2001/04/05
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates],
Alexandre Oliva <=
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates], Michael Matz, 2001/04/06
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates], Alexandre Oliva, 2001/04/06
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates], edward, 2001/04/06
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates], s_a_white, 2001/04/07