[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [FYI] Cleanup of linux pass_all

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: [FYI] Cleanup of linux pass_all
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:56:05 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (X11/20040615)

Hi Alexandre, Scott!

Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 04:24 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>I realize you're trying to be pragmatic here, and trying to find the
>>simplest solution for the big problem at hand, but I don't think
>>that's the right way to run a project.  You should think of the
>>libtool design first, and then try to get packages to use it properly,
>>instead of forcing libtool to bend backwards to support abuses from
>>packages that should have known better.  While some of these packages
>>might not actually be broken, others will be, and with this change
>>users may get confused and blame libtool for an error that is actually
> The error in this case is Libtool's.  It refuses to link PIC code into a
> shared library because the test it uses to determine whether code is PIC
> or not doesn't actually do anything of the kind and is based on an
> incorrect assumption (static=non-PIC, shared=PIC).

Isn't there some objdump incantation that will differentiate between PIC
and non-PIC objects?

If so, then we should add a new deplibs_check_method=objdump, and use that
for as many hosts as we are able.

Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,}
Research Scientist   ( '/
GNU Hacker           / )=
Technical Author   `(_~)_

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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