[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: postdeps empty on OpenBSD

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: postdeps empty on OpenBSD
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:10:49 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

[ By the way, I don't think everyone in this discussion has subscribed
this list; if in doubt, speak up, or even better, set Mail-Followup-To:
next time ]

* Jacob Meuser wrote on Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 04:10:36AM CEST:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 08:41:38AM +0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > |
> > | but, there was something of a policy decision made to not link libraries
> > | against eachother.  actually, this policy is somewhat under debate, and
> > | the runtime linker is getting a bit of a reworking ...
> > |
> > | as far as why -lstdc++ is not always used, I can't find the reason ATM,
> > | but I do remember some discussion of that at some point.  maybe it's
> > | possible that -lstdc++ is not always necessary for each and every g++
> > | link command?
> > |
> > | knowing that not always using -lstdc++ was a conscious decision, I would
> > | really consider libtool adding -lstdc++ to be a bug.
> > |
> > 
> > Well, we need to find a solution to the original poster's problem (runtime
> > loading a c++ library from a C application), and I don't see another way to
> > do that.
> just add -lstdc++ manually.  trust me, that works fine.  I really don't
> see why libtool should be adding this automatically.

I do.  People can rightly expect linking C++ code to work under both
BSD-like systems as well as GNUish systems as well as, for example,
Solaris/CC where -lstdc++ is spelled "-lCstd -lCrun".  Libtool promises
to keep the normal user from being exposed to these differences.

> is it _always_ needed?  what about -lsupc++?

Ahh, very good question.  Here we have an issue: it should be possible
to _override_ the decision of libtool to add -lstdc++ on OpenBSD in all
cases.  But those cases, in my opinion, would be the exception rather
than the rule: they are usually the cause when your package makes use of
some system-specifics anyway.  (Maybe there is even a way to detect
whether supc++ is preferable over stdc++; I don't know of one, though,
and in this case guessing is probably worse than allowing an override.)

Can we agree on this somehow?  What other issues, if any, are you


reply via email to

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