[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Portability of -no-undefined

From: Peter O'Gorman
Subject: Re: Portability of -no-undefined
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:08:26 +0900
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803)

Noah Misch wrote:

I would have expected identical binaries on GNU/Linux.  Indeed, binaries built
with and without -no-undefined should be identical on _all_ platforms; without
-no-undefined, libtool simply does not build a shared library on platforms that
do not allow undefined symbols in shared libraries.

I'll look at crafting a test case around the equivalence of -no-undefined and
regular binaries.  I appreciate the report.

On at least Mac OS X libraries built with -no-undefined are different from those built without. Why should we not take advantage of any extra features offered by the toolchain/OS for libraries with no undefined symbols.

Also testing for equivalence of libraries on Mac OS X is not going to work (unless you write a special test program) as libraries often contain a timestamp in the mach headers.

Peter O'Gorman -

reply via email to

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