From: Andre Hentz (ahentz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-23 17:12:27
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Tomas Puverle wrote:
>>>>Here's a summary:
>>>> - Library order is important so <linkflags> doesn't work. I tried.
>>>The specific problem is that <linkflags> are added to the beginning of
>>>the command line, so references from the libraries/objects present later
>>>are not resolved, right?
>>This seems to be very similar to my recent regression test problem.
> Indeed, except that Andre wants also to force static linking to a library. But
> now I recall that Andre wants to link to libsup++, just like you, and... that
> library does not come with shared variant.
> So, Andre, it seems your use case would work if the <linkflags> were added to
> the end of the linker's command line, not to the front? Could you try moving
> the occurence of OPTIONS in gcc.link and gcc.link.dll to the end?
> Ah, and in that case it will even work if you write
> <linkflags>"-Wl,-Bstatic -lsupc++".
> - Volodya
Thanks. It did work when I moved OPTIONS to the end of the line.
All my projects compiled but I'm not sure that modification is a good
idea for everyone. I'll just keep that as a local change for a while. In
fact, I just realized that this will all become irrelevant once I'm able
to move to gcc 3.x (don't ask why but I'm still stuck with 2.95).
Thanks again for your patience, Volodya.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk