Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined

[Brian Dessent]

John Brown wrote:

> In all cases, ld would find the symbols easily, if only it would try. Is
> libtool really complaining about these so-called undefined symbols? If that
> is so, why? Why does it not just try to build the DLL? If ld fails because
> of undefined symbols, then it can say so at that time.
> 
> Is that if I am building my.dll on Windows, and it consists only of my.c,
> which calls only functions in my.c, then -no-undefined is not required, but
> otherwise, -no-undefined is necessary?
> 
> Should I tell the libamrnb maintainer that configure needs to add
> --no-undefined on Windows, or Windows users should configure with
> LDFLAGS=-no-undefined?

Libtool will *not* create shared libraries without -no-undefined on PE
targets, period.  It's not about it trying to detect whether there are
or are not any undefined symbols, it's about the maintainer telling
libtool that it is safe to assume or not assume something.  So yes, you
need to either use -no-undefined unconditionally, or conditionalized on
PE targets.  See
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.user/18727> for a little
of the history.

Brian