[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin upd
From: |
Gary V . Vaughan |
Subject: |
Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates] |
Date: |
Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:55:38 +0100 |
Hello.
On Sunday 01 April 2001 1:16 pm, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > > > I have applied the following to HEAD (and similar to MLB).
> > >
> > > Why also MLB? Was it really broken there too? I ask, because I
> > > _definitely_ got multiple libraries in link commands.
> >
> > Try out the new depdemo-dups.test on an old libtool script, and you'll
> > see what I mean. Perhaps I have found and fixed a similar but different
> > bug?
>
> I see. Argh, This then again means, that libtool will probably generate
> excessively large link commands for KDE.
Yes it does =(O| Although ugly, Robert has applied the following to MLB so
that portability at least is not affected in that case:
* ltconfig.in: Add a test to find the approximate limit
to the length of command line arguments. The number
calculated here should always be lower than the actual
limit.
* ltmain.in: Test the length of the command line to be
executed and use an incremtnal linking scheme if the
command is too long to be interpreted without error.
* doc: Test the length of the command line to be
executed and use an incremtnal linking scheme if the
command is too long to be interpreted without error.
* doc/libtool.texi (Reloadable Objects): Added a few
sentences to describe how piecewise linking is done
for shared objects by creating reloadable object files.
> We sometimes list also dependent
> libs in the makefiles (history and lazyness), and this then cumulates over
> many libraries. Hmm, OK I need to check, if this really is so, but I
> suspect it.
Removing the deplib listings from Makefile.am would probably make a huge
difference to the length of the link lines where deep dependency trees are
being used...
> Furthermore it really makes no sense to _not_ remove
> duplicates for shared libs (it only applies to archives), because anyway
> only the first one is searched for undefined symbols.
Certainly for modern UNIX architectures, however, I get the impression from
Alexandre that there are platforms which do require topologically ordered
listings of shared libraries in the final link line in order to be able to
locate all of the symbols shared between those libraries. So, unless I am
mistaken, the only way to fix that would be to have another case statement to
remove shared deplibs only on platforms that are known to handle it well.
Yuck.
I'm prepared to put the support for that into libtool if Alexandre concurs,
but I'll (once again) rely on people to send me host triplets for platforms
that can definitely survive the duplicate removal. This is something we can
debate between 1.3d and 1.4.
> Ciao,
> Michael.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
___ _ ___ __ _ mailto: address@hidden
/ __|__ _ _ ___ _| | / / | / /_ _ _ _ __ _| |_ __ _ ___ address@hidden
| (_ / _` | '_|// / |/ /| |/ / _` | || / _` | ' \/ _` | _ \
\___\__,_|_|\_, /|___(_)___/\__,_|\_,_\__, |_||_\__,_|//_/
home page: /___/ /___/ gpg public key:
http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk/key.asc
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates], Michael Matz, 2001/04/01
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates], Gary V . Vaughan, 2001/04/01
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates], Michael Matz, 2001/04/01
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates],
Gary V . Vaughan <=
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates], Michael Matz, 2001/04/01
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates], Gary V . Vaughan, 2001/04/01
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates], Alexandre Oliva, 2001/04/01
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates], Gary V . Vaughan, 2001/04/01
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates], Alexandre Oliva, 2001/04/01
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates], Gary V . Vaughan, 2001/04/01
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates], Nick Hudson, 2001/04/02
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates], Robert Boehne, 2001/04/03
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates], Gary V . Vaughan, 2001/04/03
- Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates], Michael Matz, 2001/04/03