From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18239 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2008 20:15:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 18222 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2008 20:15:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from merkur.ins.uni-bonn.de (HELO merkur.ins.uni-bonn.de) (131.220.223.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:14:52 +0000 Received: from ins.uni-bonn.de (gibraltar [192.168.193.254]) by merkur.ins.uni-bonn.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297AB4000049F; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:14:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:15:00 -0000 From: Ralf Wildenhues To: IainS Cc: GCC Development , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org List" Subject: Re: [RFC, Patch, gfortran] make -static-libgfortran work on darwin. Message-ID: <20080610201448.GI1722@ins.uni-bonn.de> Mail-Followup-To: Ralf Wildenhues , IainS , GCC Development , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org List" References: <3D6964FD-6DF0-4F83-9932-6945316CFBF5@gmail.com> <20080610190632.GF1722@ins.uni-bonn.de> <98926BA1-55FA-4204-BC7E-79E992097812@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <98926BA1-55FA-4204-BC7E-79E992097812@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00262.txt.bz2 We're getting a bit off-list; if this loses connection to GCC we may want to move to libtool@gnu.org. * IainS wrote on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 09:42:29PM CEST: > On 10 Jun 2008, at 20:06, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> >> It doesn't do that because that breaks the abstraction. It might also >> increase a bit the risk of ending up with bits of the static library >> included, and bits of shared deplibs you use pulling in the shared >> version of the library. > > OK, I appreciate the first part; > I don't immediately understand how libfoo-static.a is any more > dangerous than libfoo.a > or libfoo-s.dylib .... libfoo.so Well, it's certainly not more or less dangerous than libfoo-s.dylib vs. libfoo.so. However, it's more dangerous than libfoo.a vs libfoo.so. For one, because usually libtool will uniquify listing identical -lfoo on the command line. > OK. - so the solution as I have it is in the right direction... (bar > removing the extra static lib). BTW, if it's decided to be like that: you can avoid bulding an extra lib_LTLIBRARIES on systems other than darwin by using lib_LTLIBRARIES += ... inside of an automake conditional. Cheers, Ralf