Re: libtool woes

[Ozkan Sezer]

On 9/10/13, Peter Rosin <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 2013-09-10 15:29, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> On 9/10/13, Peter Rosin <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On 2013-09-10 15:00, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/13, Peter Rosin <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-09-10 12:52, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>>>>> That effectively cripples libtool for cross-compilers. Can the
>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>> be refined instead?  Can you contact Charles Wilson about this?
>>>>>
>>>>> He should be reading this list, if he has time...
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, does this work?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it does not.  With this patch applied, I see
>>>> sys_lib_search_path_spec="/opt/W64_180676/lib/gcc "
>>>> ..  in the libtool --config output.
>>>
>>> Crap, I didn't do any final test and managed to exclude a couple
>>> of critical changes, and I did a couple of silly mistakes too. Sorry
>>> about that. Attached is what I should have sent the first time...
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, this one makes it to work. ./libtool --config output now has:
>>
>> sys_lib_search_path_spec="/opt/W64_180676/lib/gcc
>> /opt/W64_180676/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib64 /opt/cross_win64/mingw/lib64
>> /opt/W64_180676/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib /opt/cross_win64/mingw/lib "
>>
>> which is suitable.
>
> *snip*
>
>> Is it hard to implement a way of directly respecting --print-search-dirs
>> output of the compiler though?
>
> Which is the crux of the matter, isn't it? The thing is, I'm not at all
> comfortable with applying this change, and have no clue if it breaks
> any existing setup. I mean, to me it seems obvious that if
> -print-search-dirs outputs *both* a .../lib64 and a .../lib variant, then
> someone really thought the tools should look in both places even if the
> -print-multi-os-directory is ../lib64. But at the same time, it is very
> likely that this loop in libtool (which is problematic for this case)
> solves a real problem somewhere. Since I do not know why the loop is
> there in the first place (the natural thing would be to simply trust
> -print-search-dirs, just as you say) I'm uneasy to change it.
>
> Peter O'Gorman (explicitly CC:ed) added the loop [1], hopefully he can
> fill in some blanks...
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2006-10/msg00008.html
>

OK then, I'll keep an eye on mails from this list.

(On an irrelevant note, the archive pages at
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2013-09/index.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2013-09/index.html
doesn't list any mails from me, but the ones from you from this thread
are there, so I don't know whether any of the mails I send arrive at
the list..)

--
O.S.