From: Rafael L. <rla...@us...> - 2004-02-26 22:30:43
|
* Alan W. Irwin <ir...@be...> [2004-02-26 10:35]: > On 2004-02-26 12:10-0500 Koen van der Drift wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 2004, at 11:09 AM, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > > > > Okay, and what do you get with this: > > > > > > ../libtool --mode=link gcc -rpath /usr/lib -avoid-version -module > > > -o libfoo.la > > > > > > > > > > gcc -flat_namespace -undefined suppress -o .libs/libfoo.so -bundle > > gcc: no input files > > Rafael, what do you bet the problem is that Koen's version of gcc or ld > requires a *.o input file or at least an input library when > linking? Otherwise, there is ordinarily no point to the link so this test > makes sense, and I am surprised this libtool command worked before for > our versions of gcc and ld. Well it works perfectly in Linux and in every other system besides Mac OS X. I have here: $ ../libtool --mode=link gcc -rpath /usr/lib -avoid-version -module -o libfoo.la gcc -shared -Wl,-soname -Wl,libfoo.so -o .libs/libfoo.so ar cru .libs/libfoo.a ranlib .libs/libfoo.a creating libfoo.la (cd .libs && rm -f libfoo.la && ln -s ../libfoo.la libfoo.la) No need to give a *.o input file. My bet is that this is certainly a bug in libtool, which is not yet completely adapted to Mac OS X. > You should be able to arrange to give a valid input library (libc or > whatever is going to be on all systems) to the libtool command. This sounds too hazardous and I am not willing to change something that works (almost) everywhere. -- Rafael |