[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: partial linking
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: partial linking |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:52:11 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:03:35PM CET:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> >>Am I right, that there is no way to pass additional linker flags when
> >>doing partial linking?
> >
> >Yes, as of now. Consider it a bug.
>
> Is partial linking a documented libtool feature? If not, how can
> failure to support partial linking be considered a bug?
Well, it is (as was already reported).
> Unless libtool can portably support a feature, or there at least can
> be a fallback to producing software that runs, then it should not be
> supported as a libtool feature.
Well, to be honest, I don't know too much about how portable that is.
And in any case, it's a Libtool documentation bug to only mention
partial linking in 3 lines and be done with it -- no limitations, no
explanation of what it does. At least we should warn against it if
it is not usable or portable.
I investigated a little bit:
- every system I checked which has shared objects also has `ld -r'
(but exact semantics may vary), even static-only systems have it.
- it's not portable to do for neither PIC nor non-PIC objects.
- C++ might be a problem.
More info appreciated. As I see it, we should probably just warn
against it and recommend convenience libraries.
Regards,
Ralf