Re: [AD] umain in unsharable part

[George Foot <gfoot@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:16:02AM +0100, m.versteegh@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hmm.  Doesn't the complaining about _mangled_main_adress mean that
> umain.o is linked in the executable, since that's the place the thing
> is defined, and also the only place it's used?
> If you do a static linking not using END_OF_MAIN and providing
> your own main() before linkeing with allegro you don't get
> any complaintes at all.
> So I'd say you get 2 main symbols in one executable, which
> feels wrong to me.

I'm not sure; I think it's just failing to resolve a reference
from the shared library, but I think at that stage nothing is
actually linked anyway, so at runtime there's no need for it to
link the startup code's call to `main' to the shared library's
routine.  It does feel dodgy though. :)

> Surely putting the umain.o file in liballeg_unsharable cannot do  any harm?
> it a very small function anyway.

Yes, I agree that we should move it, I was just commenting on
the error.

George

-- 
Random project update:
09/05/2000: Libnet 0.10.8 uploaded -- a few bugfixes
        http://www.canvaslink.com/libnet/  (try changes-0.10.8.txt)