Re: SCO 5 shared libraries and -lc

[Kevin Ryde]

> On Friday 13 April 2001  2:22 am, Kevin Ryde wrote:
> > 
> > Without wanting to repeat myself, I posted libtool-patches in January
> > about SCO 5 and -lc on shared libraries, but the problem still exists
> > in 1.3d and the current cvs.
> 
> > Something like below (re-diffed for current libtool.m4) will be much
> > wanted, since it avoids seg faults if a shared library uses ctype.h
> > but the mainline program doesn't.  I don't have an actual explanation
> > for what goes wrong, but the advice from SCO is apparently "don't do
> > that".

"Gary V. Vaughan" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Oh yuck!
> 
> This is definitely the wrong approach.  Could you try to find a way to fix 
> the test that discovers the correct value for lt_cv_archive_cmds_need_lc 
> (aound line 2158 in libtool.m4).

cc and gcc on sco know not to add -lc, so the test there looks like it
would probably be right, except that archive_cmds is setup to use $LD,
so it doesn't come into play.

Maybe archive_cmds should switch to using $CC, though I wouldn't know
if that might upset anything else.

> If this is just a bug in SCO's linker, maybe we just need to move
> your patch into this section of libtool.m4?

I don't know if it counts as a bug, though rumour has it there's a
patch for unixware to address it.  Certainly something strange is
going on, it doesn't look like a basic ld.so/ELF setup, libc.so is an
ar archive for a start.  Cc to a sco expert for further remarks.