[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?
From: |
Russ Allbery |
Subject: |
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB? |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Jul 2006 14:16:09 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) |
Bob Friesenhahn <address@hidden> writes:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Albert Chin wrote:
>> Is libneon a static library? If not, and libneon has the 3rd-party
>> libraries as dependencies, why shouldn't linking with just -lneon
>> work?
> As you are well aware, this only works on systems where the linker
> applies implicit dependency libraries during linking. Failure results
> when a shared lib does not specify any dependencies, or the OS does not
> support it.
> For example, specifying just -lpng might not cause the linker to
> implicitly add -lz.
Note that the linker that needs to figure this out is actually the dynamic
linker as such dependencies should be resolved at run-time, *not* at link
time. A linker that does such resolution at link time actually re-adds
most of the problems that libtool currently causes.
--
Russ Allbery (address@hidden) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Albert Chin, 2006/07/03
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Sander Niemeijer, 2006/07/04