Re: somewhat misleading -no-undefined documentation

[Simon Josefsson]

Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:

> I kinda like Simon's patch you referenced (wow, that's old!), so how
> about this patch which takes from both your suggestions?

I like it.  Thanks, this closes a long-standing libtool concern of mine.

Generally, having to use -no-undefined to get things to work on some
platforms (e.g., to get a working DLL) is somewhat obscure and seems
counter to having the default behaviour Just Work.  Is there any reason
-no-undefined cannot be the default?  Is it common for installed
libraries to have unresolved symbols at link time?  Even if it is,
couldn't libtool figure out that there aren't any external symbols, and
create the DLL when it is possible?  I may be missing some details
though.

/Simon