[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?

From: Bob Friesenhahn
Subject: Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 16:39:25 -0500 (CDT)

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Tim Mooney wrote:

So to address this, libtool would need to

- know how the platform behaves regarding shared library dependencies
- in the case of static libraries, continue doing what it's already doing
- for shared libraries on platforms where the linker follows library
        - when creating a shared library, make sure that it's dependent
          libraries are recorded (however that's done for a particular
          platform, probably just linking) by the library when it's created.
        - when linking against a shared library of this type, detect which
          libraries are recorded as dependant for the shared library and
          leave those out of the list of dependency_libs for the shared

Is that about it?

Hardly. :-)

The problem is exceedingly challenging. You did not mention that on some systems libraries need to be listed in a (particular) order of diminishing dependency. For example, -lm and -lpthread would typically appear at the end of the dependency list.

Autotools has a policy of allowing the person running configure to specify additional configuration information via CFLAGS, LDFLAGS, and LIBS. This mechanism should not be broken.

Bob Friesenhahn
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,

reply via email to

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