libtool
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: TODO


From: Scott James Remnant
Subject: Re: TODO
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:45:10 +0000

On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 15:34 +0000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:

> Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 
> > I submitted keybuk-linux-deplibs.patch to libtool-patches back in March,
> > and there was a slight objection from Bob and nobody else joined in to
> > ok it.
> 
> The list was very busy around then, and I was waiting to see the results
> of you and Bob duking it out ;-)  You didn't answer any of Bob's 
> questions...
> 
I was pretty busy at the time as well, and have been manically busy
since then with the new job -- only just getting my head above water
again. 

>  >Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >> 
> >> Doesn't this patch cause Linux to be more equal than other operating
> >> systems, thereby causing free applications to be developed which won't
> >> work anywhere else?
> 
> No, it just shortens the link line on platforms that support that.
> 
And, indeed, only does that for shared libraries.

It should actually promote better support, because you need to remember
to directly link any library you depend on -- and don't rely on a
dependency library linking it in for you.

> >> This solution does not seem to support the case where an actual
> >> dependency exists but is not registered in the library (because the
> >> user didn't supply it) so that the dynamic link loader doesn't know
> >> about it?
> 
> Good point.  We really ought to check the library registered
> dependencies against the .la deplibs and only drop the deplibs
> common to both, since we know the linker will pick those up.
> I guess that means looking through the dependency tree of .la
> files to find matches.
> 
It does assume that all library dependencies are registered, yes.  This
has never been a problem, because we've never found any Libtool-produced
library that doesn't have all dependencies registered.

If this isn't the case, and at one time Libtool never registered all of
the dependencies, we should check for that.  Otherwise I don't see the
need -- we can assume sanity from our own output.

> Also, what do we do about -rpath?  We still need to encode the
> runtime path to even the dropped deplib directories so that the
> same library we linked with is picked up at runtime.
> 
Libraries have their own RPATH, don't they?

> >> If libone or libfour contain weak symbols, what happens?
> 
> I have no idea!  Scott?
> 
They're available to the library that links them.  If the application
was relying on something down the stack, it was broken anyway and
should've directly linked libone or libfour itself.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


reply via email to

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