[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests
From: |
Peter Ekberg |
Subject: |
RE: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:14:21 +0100 |
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> * Sander Niemeijer wrote on Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 01:54:12PM CET:
>>>
>>> I have some self written autoconf tests that check for linking
>>> shared libraries against some specific other libraries (these other
>>> libraries should be available as shared libraries or we might have
>>> a PIC problem. That is what my tests checks for). For this I had to
>>> create a variant
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> I agree with your view of things. I think we should allow this to
>> be done.
>>
>> Gary, you did the whole bootstrap reorganization. Is anything close
>> to this possible?
>
> The theory:
>
> It is my belief that an actual link should not be necessary to test
> for some characteristic.
*snip* as the rest assumed this is true.
It is indeed very useful to actually test if linking succeeds and
thereby check if a given lib contains a given symbol. What better
way to do the linking test than to use a tool that "hides the
complexity of using shared libraries behind a consistent, portable
interface"?
The mere existence of the AC_LINK_IFELSE macro (and AC_RUN_IFELSE
for that matter) suggests that I'm not alone in thinking it is
useful to link in configure scripts...
Cheers,
Peter
- Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests, (continued)
- Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests, Sander Niemeijer, 2004/11/22
- Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/22
- Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests, Sander Niemeijer, 2004/11/22
- Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/22
- Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests, Sander Niemeijer, 2004/11/22
RE: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests, Peter Ekberg, 2004/11/18
RE: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests,
Peter Ekberg <=