[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Libtool and Intel compiler

From: Guido Draheim
Subject: Re: Libtool and Intel compiler
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:34:19 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

address@hidden wrote:
==> "s" == sentinel27  <address@hidden> writes:

    s> I try to use the Intel compiler for linux together with
    s> automake /autoconf /libtool, but the icc does not understand
    s> the -rpath option. correct would be -Wl,-rpath, but no matter
    s> what I try to add to the I always end up with
    s> -rpath as option. Is there any way around that ??

The Intel compiler uses some different switches from gcc, although it
does use GNU ld -- your -rpath will work, with some additional effort.

Replace '-Wl,' with '-Qoption,ld,', to start with.  There are other
deviations too, mostly related to -W switches for warnings.

Unless some one is interested in folding in icc support, the easiest
workaround is to write a shell wrapper as your 'CC' and 'CXX' that
translates gcc switches provided by libtool into correct icc options.
My experience is that libtool can be completely fooled this way.

The hard part is the dependency generation -- icc has a dependency
generation mode, but it's not done in parallel with compiles like
the way gcc does.  Your hypothetical shell script would need to
invoke icc twice to reproduce gcc's -M behavior.

Atleast that is a good reason to fold it into libtool. There are
other nongcc compilers with "interesting" link-options, espescially
when it comes to sharedlib creation - if I understood it
correctly all the time, libtool was invented just for that
purpose, to flatten away the differences of library creation.

The case that icc is not in libtool, IYAM, is simpley the fact
that it is still somewhat new - to a degree that none of the
CC/CXX wrapper scripts were ever ripped apart and filled into which is actually nothing more than a long shellscript
with case's for platforms and compilers.

someone to step forward?

reply via email to

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