Re: -no-undefined on Win32

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014, Evgeny Grin wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It's strange for me that last line in following qoute from ltmain.in is 
> commented out:
> ---
>      # It is impossible to link a dll without this setting, and
>      # we shouldn't force the makefile maintainer to figure out
>      # what system we are compiling for in order to pass an extra
>      # flag for every libtool invocation.
>      # allow_undefined=no
> ---
>
> Almost all project ported to Win32 already have "-no-undefined" options, but 
> this always add more headache on porting to Win32.
> If lib contains some undefined symbol, then dll will not be created regardless of using 
> "-no-undefined".
> If lib doesn't contain any undefined symbols, then dll can be created so why forcing use 
> "-no-undefined"?

Why does it create more headache when porting to Win32?  Using this 
option indicates that the project has been constructed in a way which 
will work on systems which do not allow undefined symbols.  Many 
projects (particularly those targeting only GNU/Linux because it is a 
popular operating system) are not suitably constructed and require 
adaptation.

Libtool always defaults to successful compilation and link, to the 
maximum extent possible.

Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/