[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Linking against indirect dependencies

From: Szombathelyi György
Subject: Re: Linking against indirect dependencies
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:37:38 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; hu; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

Bob Friesenhahn írta:

On Mon, 24 May 2004, Albert Chin wrote:

dependency_libs doesn't contain just libraries. Maybe LDFLAGS as well,
like -pthread. BTW, is it _really_ a problem to link against
everything in dependency_libs? Indirectly, this is going to happen
anyway even if libtool doesn't do this.

Yes, it's a problem, when someone wants to package his application/library - most times a dependency hell will start. Did you see the thread I linked above?

Of course the correct answer is that not linking against indirect dependencies is non-portable. Certainly Microsoft Windows DLLs require full linkage, and I believe/suspect that AIX does as well.

Libtool always chooses the most portable approach and does not encourage developers to use non-portable platform-specific approaches. If libtool encouraged developers to use non-portable platform-specific techniques, then it would be dealing a blow to the goal of supporting portable software.

I thinked that libtool hides the platform specific differences, and not enforcing the lowest common features all of the supported platforms. A libtool using developer of course should not care about if linking indirect dependencies are needed or not, but libtool should. For me, portability means that you can recompile & relink the application on another platform, and getting the most out of the target platform is a good thing.


reply via email to

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