|
From: | Peter O'Gorman |
Subject: | Re: Portability of -no-undefined |
Date: | Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:08:26 +0900 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) |
Noah Misch wrote:
I would have expected identical binaries on GNU/Linux. Indeed, binaries built with and without -no-undefined should be identical on _all_ platforms; without -no-undefined, libtool simply does not build a shared library on platforms that do not allow undefined symbols in shared libraries. I'll look at crafting a test case around the equivalence of -no-undefined and regular binaries. I appreciate the report.
On at least Mac OS X libraries built with -no-undefined are different from those built without. Why should we not take advantage of any extra features offered by the toolchain/OS for libraries with no undefined symbols.
Also testing for equivalence of libraries on Mac OS X is not going to work (unless you write a special test program) as libraries often contain a timestamp in the mach headers.
Peter -- Peter O'Gorman - http://www.pogma.com
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |