[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libgl1 vs C++ transition, round 2



This one time, at band camp, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:31:46AM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>
> > If I understand this correctly, you want to make sure that libGLU.so
> > does not export C++ symbols in its ABI?
>
> It does not export C++ symbols, but your program will end up linking
> with libstdc++.  Other than that, it looks like a C library.

Er, okay, let me get this straight:  If a program or library (written
totally in C) links against libGLU, then it must link against libstdc++ too?

That seems totally broken to me.

I'm currently sitting on #134262 because of this.  My reasoning is that glut
is written in C and for ages now has been compiled with just gcc, and hasn't
linked against libstdc++, and I've had no problems with it.  I don't see why
I should be forced to explicitly link glut and any programs that use glut
against libstdc++.  It's not very intuitive.

I see two potential sources of the problem:

 a) GLU is broken and needs to have its ABI fixed so that programs don't
 need to link against libstdc++ when they themselves are not written in C++.

 b) the linker (either ld, or the dynamic linker, or both) is broken.

I concede that there may be one other source, and that is my naivety that a
C API should in fact behave like one, and I would dearly love someone to
explain and/or resolve this problem.

-- 
jaq@debian.org                               http://people.debian.org/~jaq

Attachment: pgpYbImEbBf3Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: