[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Relative paths in *_LDADD vs absolute paths in .la dependencies
From: |
Olly Betts |
Subject: |
Relative paths in *_LDADD vs absolute paths in .la dependencies |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:39:10 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux) |
With a fairly recent CVS HEAD libtool (but I see the same with 1.5.8)
the following command:
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link g++ -o quartzcheck \
quartzcheck-quartzcheck.o ../testsuite/libbtreecheck.la ../libxapian.la
causes libtool to execute (my wrapping):
g++ -o .libs/quartzcheck quartzcheck-quartzcheck.o \
../testsuite/.libs/libbtreecheck.a \
/s2/olly/svn/xapian/xapian-core/.libs/libxapian.so ../.libs/libxapian.so \
-Wl,--rpath -Wl,/u1/olly/install/lib
The full path to libxapian.so comes from libbtreecheck.la's
dependencies, while the relative path (which leads to the same files)
comes from the link line.
I think this is mostly a cosmetic problem, except that it probably
causes the linker more work unless it realises the two libxapian.so's
are actually the same.
Is there a way to avoid this happening - e.g. are paths to .la files
specified in LDADD meant to be absolute rather than relative? I'd
rather not remove the explicit mention of libxapian.la from
quartzcheck_LDADD since it's really an implementation detail of
libbtreecheck.la that it depends on libxapian.la.
Cheers,
Olly
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Relative paths in *_LDADD vs absolute paths in .la dependencies,
Olly Betts <=