Re: linking modules into programs problem

[Christoph Pfisterer]

Michael Matz wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Nick Hudson wrote:
>
>  > Having need_lib_prefix to yes does allow modules to be linked into
> >  libraries and binaries, but again this is counter intuitive as
> >  libraries are linked in not modules.
>
> I agree in some way.  But libtool's purpose is to behave everywhere the
> same way (as circumstances permit), and as on some platforms modules can
> be linked...

As you mention, some platforms allow this, others don't. The purpose 
of libtool in my eyes is to provide a common denominator for as much 
platforms as possible.

>  > I would agree with Alexandre and say that libtool should issue a warning or
> >  error if something attempt's to link in a module.
>
> But on many systems this is allowed, so an error would seem strange.

Well, there _are_ systems where linking in modules as if they were 
shared libraries is not only not allowed, but impossible. One example 
is Darwin (a.k.a. the open-sourced, BSD- and Mach-based kernel of Mac 
OS X). It uses the Mach-O file format, which differentiates between 
shared libraries (file type MH_DYLIB) and modules (file type 
MH_BUNDLE). Only the libraries can be linked against and only the 
modules can be dlopen()'ed.

> And
> given, that libtool can mimic this behaviour also on platforms needing lib
> prefix, why should it barf?  OK, I also have another reason ;) : If
> libtool would prevent modules from being linked into executables, we would
> link many of our (KDE-) modules two time (as modules and as lib), thereby
> doubling the binary size, for no good reason (and all the Makefile.am
> would need fixing, doh ;) )

Hmmm, and I had hoped porting KDE to Darwin would be easy...

-chrisp

--
chrisp a.k.a. Christoph Pfisterer   "Any sufficiently advanced
address@hidden - http://chrisp.de      bug is indistinguishable
PGP key & geek code available        from a feature."