Re: HEAD fails stress test on darwin

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Peter O'Gorman writes:
> This is just to remind me to bug Ralf when he gets back.

Next week. 

> I'd propose a 
> patch, but I'm not quite sure of Ralf's intent with the test.

By looking at the output, it seems that I goofed up.. 

> peter% ../../libtool/tests/testsuite -v 5
> [snip]
> stdout:
> libtool: link: ar cru sub2/.libs/liba.a sub/.libs/a.o
> libtool: link: ranlib sub2/.libs/liba.a
> libtool: link: creating sub2/liba.la
> libtool: link: ( cd "sub2/.libs" && rm -f "liba.la" && ln -s "../liba.la" 
> "liba.la" )
> ../../libtool/tests/stresstest.at:170: $LIBTOOL --mode=link $CC $st -o 
> "$rel"main "$rel"main.lo "$rel"sub2/liba.la
> stdout:
> libtool: link: gcc -o main .libs/main.o   sub2/.libs/liba.a
> ld: multiple definitions of symbol _v1
> .libs/main.o definition of _v1 in section (__DATA,__common)
> sub2/.libs/liba.a(a.o) definition of _v1 in section (__DATA,__common)
> ../../libtool/tests/stresstest.at:171: ./main 
>
> Because both main.c and a.c have:
> int v1;

.. but I'm not sure whether I wanted one of them to be extern or
whether I wanted to see if the linker can in fact skip unused objects
(which then may have extra instances of variables). 

Err, no.  I actually thought this was supported by C (i.e., have COMMON
objects).  Since this may be an (infrequent) source of errors, we might
want to check specifically for this.. 

Will look closer later.
Ralf