Get rid of libtool? [was Re: Makefile problems]

Wed Feb 27 18:02:00 GMT 2002

On Feb 26, 2002, Jeff Sturm <jsturm@one-point.com> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > - real incremental linking (*not* convenience libraries, which are a lousy
>> > substitute).
>>>> Which of the definitions of incremental linking are you talking about?

> ld -r

Libtool already uses this for some features; it would be nice if it
could use it for convenience libraries, as I have already suggested
before. I didn't know it would cause problems on alpha, though. More
complexity :-(
>> > For instance, libgcj assumes public data symbols are exported by
>> > default, which certainly isn't true on windows at least.
>>>> Are you talking of -export-dynamic or something entirely different?

> I'm talking about the dllimport/dllexport mess. Actually the dllexport is
> solved, I think... it's the dllimport that can't be automated by libtool.

Right. That's why libtool requires the library/application to declare
it's DLL-compliant with an autoconf macro before it gets into the
business of creating DLLs for that library. I heard some people have
recently got around this ugly detail of Windows DLLs, though, but I've
been too much out of the loop to tell for sur
> Point is, there are characteristics of shared lib implementations that
> cannot be abstracted away... so is it worth trying?

Nope, it has to be left up to the user. Which is what libtool does.
-- 
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer