Re: Libtool 1.5 on MacOS X

[Peter O'Gorman]

On Monday, June 2, 2003, at 01:48  PM, Bill Northcott wrote:

> > > > Because of the way things are set up, adding fsf gcc support is
> > > > essentially adding a completely different compiler. Depending on my
> > > > available free time, I may decide to revisit this issue, do you
> > > > really think it is required?
> > >
> > > With stock GCC 3.3, most if not all of the Apple-like command line
> > > options are processed just as they are on the compiler distributed by
> > > Apple.  Take a look at the sources and you'll see there are hooks for
> > > this.  For libtool 1.5, treating stock GCC 3.3 like Apple's GCC works
> > > for me to generate dynamic libraries and executables.
>
> > I just did have a quick peek at the sources, looks like you are indeed
> > correct. I will submit a patch to the list tomorrow. To excuse myself
> > here, almost none of these flags were passed through by the gcc-3.2  
> > fsf
> > gcc which was available when I first looked at this issue.
>
> Firstly:
> Fixing the libtool.m4 macros allowed our project to build on MacOS X  
> using
> an FSF gcc3.3 compiler.
>
> Secondly:
> I would like to second Marcus' comments that the differences between an
> Apple compiler and an FSF compiler built on MacOS X are very small.   
> The
> big difference is the compiler file layout.  See the link below for a
> complete listing of Apple compiler options which highlights the ones  
> not
> supported on the FSF version.
> http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/DeveloperTools/gcc3/gcc/ 
> Option-Summary.html#Option%20Summary
> They involve Apple specific issues such as kext support, Apple ld/dyld
> support, Pascal strings, pre-compiled headers, Altivec and a couple of
> Apple legacy compatability things.  All of these seem to me to be  
> unlikely
> to be an issue for cross platform code that wants to use libtool or the
> FSF compiler.  I think the FSF compiler is supposed to support Altivec
> real soon now.


The linker flags are new to fsf gcc-3.3, they were not there in 3.2  
when I did my original patch. It would have required using ld to do the  
linking, which I did not want to do.

If you were on the libtool-patches list, you would see that I have  
submitted a patch to add back fsf gcc support, there is one little bug  
which it took me a while to figure out (-bundle as the first argument  
to gcc fails for fsf gcc, but works fine when it is 2nd or 3rd etc.  
arg), so I had to move the flags around too.

Thanks,
Peter