Re: [FYI] Cleanup of linux pass_all

[Jacob Meuser]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 02:49:15PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 11:31 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > I'm all for having Libtool tell you that you can't link non-PIC code
> > into a shared library on platforms that don't support that -- but that
> > needs to be done by actually checking you're trying to do that, rather
> > than using an incorrect assumption.
> 
> It seems that the linker would be in a much better position to diagnose
> attempts to link non-PIC into a DSO than libtool is.

But, isn't that an important function of libtool, to know whether it is
building a proper shared object?

>  So, at least where
> GNU ld is used, I think it'd be better for libtool not to try to
> determine compatibility for itself, and instead add that check to ld on
> platforms where it's important.

Or maybe adopt an old idea from NetBSD.  Instead of using names like
libfoo.a for archives built with PIC objects, call it libfoo_pic.a.

Of course, it would take a long time for everyone to adopt that, but libtool
itself could easily adopt such a scheme, which may help speed up it's
acceptance ...

-- 
<address@hidden>