On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 05:30:16PM +0100, David Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2001, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > Libtool may be too heavy-weight for PAM methinks. To start on
> > multi-platform support just a few autoconf macros should suffice.
> > Eventually it might be easier to libtoolize.
>
> True. Indeed, I think some of the patches I submitted over the past year
> for "configure.in" and friends seem to have helped matters. But it's
> still not ideal, particularly for native (i.e. non gcc) compilers and
> linkers. And if we start doing two much linker-related stuff in autoconf,
> wouldn't that simply be re-inventing the libtool wheel? (And it wouldn't
> be as well rounded!)
Because this wheel has already been re-invented many times, and usually
it's much simpler than libtool, so we don't have to re-invent it
anyways.
:)
Eventually though, Linux-PAM may come to be used on so many platforms
that libtool becomes inevitable.
> > > For the immediate problem: I had understood that generally the best way to
> > > do linking with "gcc" is to invoke it via "gcc" itself, letting it choose
> > > its preferred way (whether native "ld" or GNU "ld", as determined when gcc
> > > was itself installed). That is: the command we invoke should probably be
> > > of the form "gcc ..." rather than "ld ...".
> >
> > Maybe, but what if you want to use Sun's C compiler?
>
> Again, isn't it then better, as a rule of thumb, to do this via the
> compiler invocation ("cc") rather than trying "ld" directly? Certainly
> whatever I try to do on Suns, I always try my best to avoid invoking (or
> specifying or...) any "ld" directly, but instead go through the compiler
> interface.
Well, yes, as long as the compiler link command line doesn't vary too
much from GCC to SUNWspro (it shouldn't).
>: David Lee I.T. Service :
Cheers,
Nico
--
