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

Re: fw: gfortran transition release goal proposal

On 7/26/07, Christian Holm Christensen <cholm@nbi.dk> wrote:

If developers write their `configure' script properly, it shouldn't be
too much of a problem.  The idea is, check for libraries, adding them to
the `LIBS' variable (AC_CHECK_LIB does that), and at the end you check
for missing functions (at this point you will link your test against the
LIBS) and implement them, if any, via replacement code.  Of course, if
you have two orthogonal libraries, both implementing the fix, you could
still get into trouble.

Right, that's exactly what I'm concerned about.  It could easily
happen that some user wants to link his/her FORTRAN program against
two independent trees of FORTRAN libraries, e.g. cernlib + MPICH, each
including this hack, and then boom! conflicting getarg_ symbols.

Anyone know offhand if this causes a linker failure (and if there is
any difference depending on whether one or both of the libraries is
linked statically), or if the compiler / runtime linker just
arbitrarily picks one of the two dummy getarg_'s?

Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu>   Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/    Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751                 Princeton, NJ 08544

Reply to: