Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	RE: libtool devel package still dll crippled.
Date:	Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:42:50 +1000
Message-ID:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5E2B@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
content-class:	urn:content-classes:message
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	"Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc:	"Cygwin-Apps" <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g3DNgsH05641

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:31 AM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: Cygwin-Apps
> Subject: Re: libtool devel package still dll crippled.
> 
> 
> Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> 
> > What Ralfs patch does is change
> > allow_undefined_flag to no (as opposed to unsupported) and
> 
> 
> ??  what's the difference between "...=unsupported" and "...=no" and 
> "...="?  Shouldn't the SAME answer be given in all sections, with 
> respect to whether "allow_undefined_flag" is a legal option?

Sorry, I was unclear. Ralfs alteration is at the right place, but IMO
wrong. It should leave always export = yes, and set "allow_undefined=".

This works for me with .dll's and C++. I'll try Ralf settings now and
see how it goes.
 
> Granted, you can't build a DLL -- in any language -- if there are 
> undefined symbols.  But if I want to use libtool to build a 
> static lib, 
> I should be allowed to have undefined symbols.  Fine -- by default 
> cygwin-libtool asserts -no-undefined, so I need to override 
> that.  SO, 
> allow_undefined_flag needs to be "yes" or "supported" or 
> "...=", right?

allow_undefined_flag should be "..=". IMO that is. I'm trying to get rid
of the configure.in AC_LIBTOOL_DLL garbage, and make it transparent to
the user. There is a lot to do - yes.
 
> I don't understand how merely allowing a user to supply a flag hurts 
> Ralf's KDE build -- unless he is (mistakenly) USING that flag (even 
> though he shouldn't when building a DLL).
> 
> And I REALLY don't want to disallow people from building static libs 
> with undefined symbols using cygwin libtool.

Which is why setting it to "..=="  is correct.
 
> Okay, my patch conflicts with his.  Original CVS (20020316) (ignoring 
> the always_export_symbols thing):
> 
> _LT_AC_TAGVAR(allow_undefined_flag, $1)=unsupported
> 
> My patch:
> 
> _LT_AC_TAGVAR(allow_undefined_flag, $1)=
> 
> Ralf's patch
> 
> _LT_AC_TAGVAR(allow_undefined_flag, $1)=no
> 
> Again, the "...=" came from you, Rob.  So, what's the 
> difference between 
> "...=" and "...=no" or "...=unsupported" (or "...=yes", for that 
> matter).  And which do we want/need?

We want "...=". In both locations.

I'll test the always_export_symbols settings now and send another email
when that build is done.

Rob

- Raw text -