Re: Call for help: Solaris C++ and Sun CC

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Tim,

* Tim Mooney wrote on Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:25:29PM CEST:
> In regard to: Re: Call for help: Solaris C++ and Sun CC, Albert Chin 
> said...:
> >On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:46:13PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>So I looked around.  I've found this documentation
> >>http://docs-pdf.sun.com/806-7982/806-7982.pdf (page 21):
> >>
> >>| The Sun WorkShop 6 update 2 C++ compiler (5.3) includes a shared
> >>| version of the libCstd library.
> >>| To use the shared version of libCstd, do the following:
> >>| 1. As superuser, manually create the following symbolic links.
> >>|
> >>| example% ln -s /usr/lib/libCstd.so.1 \
> >>|   /opt/SUNWSpro/lib/libCstd.so
> >>| example% ln -s /usr/lib/libCstd.so.1 \
> >>|   /opt/SUNWSpro/lib/v8plus/libCstd.so
> >>| example% ln -s /usr/lib/sparcv9/libCstd.so.1 \
> >>|   /opt/SUNWSpro/lib/v9/libCstd.so
> >
> >We have this compiler on a Solaris 2.6 system and none of
> >/opt/SUNWSpro/lib/libCstd.so, /opt/SUNWSpro/lib/v8plus/libCstd.so, and
> >/opt/SUNWSpro/lib/v9/libCstd.so exist. There is no libCstd.so anywhere
> >in /opt/SUNWspro/lib.
> 
> I missed earlier parts of this thread, so I'm not sure what's being
> discussed.  We do have the Workshop 6u2 environment, including the
> C++ compiler.

These two threads contain the patches recently applied to fix the
failure with undefined symbols on Solaris with CC (Sun C++ compiler):

>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-07/msg00088.html
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-08/msg00043.html

> I've never (manually) created these links or the links for libiostream.

The system I tested on does not have above unversioned symlinks, and so
links against a libCstd.a with PIC objects.  Obviously, the libbaz.so
created by the 'tagdemo-shared tagdemo-make' tests then has half of
libCstd contained in it.  Having this huge lib is both uncomfortable and
dangerous: when you start linking against several C++ libraries, you can
end up with all sorts of very subtle problems.

Then I found this documentation.  Now I'm unsure whether we should guard
against this issue (I'd like to), but more importantly: I don't know how
we _can_ guard against it easily.

Cheers,
Ralf