[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined
From: |
John Brown |
Subject: |
Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:27:42 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
Brian Dessent <brian <at> dessent.net> writes:
>
>
> Libtool will *not* create shared libraries without -no-undefined on PE
> targets, period.
<cut>
> 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
I am not really convinced that this behaviour is right. It looks like
discrimination against users of the evil M$ O/S , but I know nothing about
writing programs for multiple platforms, so I cannot argue.
Just for my information:
I gather that on Linux, you *can* create a shared library with undefined
symbols.
1) Why would anyone do that intentionally?
2) Assuming that it was a mistake, could it happen silently?
3) What are the consequences?
- Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined, John Brown, 2007/04/29
- Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined, Brian Dessent, 2007/04/29
- Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined,
John Brown <=
- Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/04/30
- Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined, John Brown, 2007/04/30
- Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined, Bob Rossi, 2007/04/30
- Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined, Brian Dessent, 2007/04/30
- Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined, Bob Rossi, 2007/04/30
- Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined, Brian Dessent, 2007/04/30
Re: Making shared libraries (DLLs) on Windows: -no-undefined, Christian Biesinger, 2007/04/30