[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] cancellation, take one

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2003-02-18 00:57:14 CET

On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 17:42, Branko ╚ibej wrote:
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with that kind of dependencies. Any
> normal linker can resolve them; at worst, you'll get one of those files
> on the link line twice.

Not so.

In the Unix world, with shared libraries, circular dependencies are not
generally an issue because the entire library is linked in regardless of
what symbols are called for. (Though IRIX manages to produce link
failures anyway, presumably through misguided heroic efforts.) With
static libraries, you have to resolve symbols after they are used
because only the necessary objects are pulled in at link time.

No problem, you say, we'll just link in -lsvn_subr -lsvn_delta
-lsvn_subr? That doesn't play nice with modern libtool. In an effort
to avoid the "three million -lz" problem, modern libtool collapses
redundant library dependencies, under the assumption (perfectly valid in
~100% of all real-world packages) that there are no circular
dependencies in the mix. There is a command-line option to prevent this
problem, but I don't believe there's a way to tell that a particular
pair of libraries depend on each other.

> All our copyright headers are the same in all files, for good reason --
> they're updated by a script.

It's not clear to me that this is really acceptable, but I doubt it will
ever matter in practice.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 18 00:58:00 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.