Re: Creating a standalone executable

[JD Cole]

Paul,
  My mistake. I went back and checked the need for -loctinterp, and it 
isn't. It didn't make sense to me either. (This was a figment of me 
trying to get mode stand-alone app to work. But now I can't repeat the 
problem.) As for -lkpathsea, I have compiled octave with the 
--enable-shared --enable-dl. Perhaps when these switches are marked, 
kpathsea is not being linked in statically. I verified that it is not a 
shared library of my stand-alone app using ldd:

ldd ./a

   liboctave.so => /video_tmp/build/lib/octave-2.1.40/liboctave.so 
(0x40018000)
   liboctinterp.so => 
/video_tmp/build/lib/octave-2.1.40/liboctinterp.so (0x40157000)
   libcruft.so => /video_tmp/build/lib/octave-2.1.40/libcruft.so 
(0x403c2000)
   liblapack.so.3 => /usr/lib/liblapack.so.3 (0x4042e000)
   libblas.so.3 => /usr/lib/libblas.so.3 (0x40871000)
   libreadline.so.4 => /video_tmp/build_tools/lib/libreadline.so.4 
(0x408bc000)
   libncurses.so.5 => /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 (0x408e7000)
   libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40929000)
   libg2c.so.0 => /video_tmp/build_tools/lib/libg2c.so.0 (0x4092d000)
   libm.so.6 => /lib/i686/libm.so.6 (0x4094c000)
   libgcc_s.so.1 => /video_tmp/build_tools/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40970000)
   libstdc++.so.5 => /video_tmp/build_tools/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x40978000)
   libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/libc.so.6 (0x40a2d000)
   /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)


Please note that this compilation only used an extra "-lkpathsea" and NO 
"-loctinterp". Which leads me to ask, why liboctinterp is still a 
dynamic library dependency.

-JD

Paul Kienzle wrote:

> Can you include -lkpathsea on the mkoctfile line?  Those libs
> should be passed directly through to the linker unless there
> is a bug in mkoctfile.
>
> The reason not to include -loctinterp is that liboctave can
> be used without liboctinterp.  On the other hand, it doesn't
> hurt to specify -loctinterp even if nothing uses it, does it?
>
> I didn't realize kpathsea was a separate library.  I thought
> it was statically linked into liboctave.
>
>