Re: LDADD and linker options like --whole-archive

[Stefan Puiu]

Hi Marc,

thanks a lot for your assistance. Now I think I understand the point.

It seems like a good solution for the future, however, I don't have
the time to try this right now, and in the short term it doesn't seem
to bring significant improvements, besides allowing me to get rid of
--whole-archive/--no-whole-archive. There's also one catch - some of
the libraries need to register in some binaries, while not in others -
let's say you have libfoo.a which has SomeRegisteringComponent.o and
SomeOtherUtilities.o. In one binary I want to use the registering
component, which will require the library to be linked without leaving
anything out. However, some binaries will only need
SomeOtherUtilities.o, so then I can just leave libfoo.a out of the
whole-archive list when building them.

Our code is proprietary and closed source, no chance of seeing it on
the web, unfortunately. Also, I think what we do is standardize our
developing environment on something that one Linux vendor provides,
because we have some sort of support contract with them (as far as I
understand). Most of the stuff we use is 2 years old - gcc (3.3), GNU
make, autotools etc. Switching to unofficially patched CVS versions of
the autotools would probably not be contemplated by people making this
kind of decisions here.

Stefan.

On 4/20/06, Marc Alff <address@hidden> wrote:
> Let me try to explain how the whole thing would work in your case :
> Assumption is that today, you have something like this
>
[...]
> Also, keep in mind this enhancement is not part of the official automake
> release yet,
> but I hope to convince Alexandre (and Ralf for a change in libtool) at
> some point,
> and seeing if it solves your problem will work towards that :)
>
> Let me know how I can assist you with all this.
> If your code is public and available on the web, I can look at it and at
> the Makefile.am changes.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Marc Alff.
>
>
>