Re: libtool rearranging library paths

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Christopher,

* Christopher Hulbert wrote on Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 05:23:06PM CET:
> On 12/2/05, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> > * Christopher Hulbert wrote on Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:29:52PM CET:
> > > On 12/2/05, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > This issue is a bit more complicated:
> >
> > - If we change libtool.m4 to do the detection itself, it will
> >   (hopefully) decide to use the /../libso directory.  But will pgf90
> >   also be smart enough to link against the shared libs in there
> >   (libpgf90.so etc) rather than putting the PIC objects frm libpgf90.a
> >   etc into the library?  Testing says: yes.
> 
> They're not all shared objects in there.

Right.  The libso/ has only PIC, bug both archive (.a) and shared (.so).

> Looks like they have PIC static and shared.  I was able to move the
> shared objects to another directory and compile successfully and the
> shared object runs.

OK.  That may break some different use of those compilers, and won't be
possible for users lacking the corresponding priviledges.


Now to the other topic:

> On another note, why does libtool add an entire static archive (.a) if
> it wasn't created with libtool?  I did an nm on a convenience library
> and it had a .a stuck in there and nm complained that it didn't know
> what file type that was.  It was also missing the symbols from inside
> that archive (the objects were in an archive in an archive).  I think
> I also did this for a shared object and got the same results.

We're playing the same game again, back to round one: Please show what
you give libtool to eat and what it makes from it.  Also please show the
contents of the .la file that belongs to the convenience library, exact
version of libtool (and what else may be involved).  Then we can proceed
from there.  Prose helps very little when reporting libtool bugs.  That
said, I've never heard of this behavior before.

You might want to start a new thread for this if it's completely
unrelated with the current issue -- otherwise maybe adjusting the topic
may be appropriate.

Cheers,
Ralf