GNU bug report logs - #76177
_LT_SYS_HIDDEN_LIBDEPS oddities with Fortran

Previous Next

Full log

Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christian Feld <c.feld <at> fz-juelich.de>
To: <bug-libtool <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Gregor Corbin <g.corbin <at> fz-juelich.de>
Subject: Re: _LT_SYS_HIDDEN_LIBDEPS oddities with Fortran
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:28:45 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I tried again with the latest libtool release. With that version, I 
don't see the '... -l -l ...' and '... -L -L ...'. Good!

The observation that postedeps_FC is empty in the absence of AC_PROG_CXX 
still holds, though.

Christian


On 10.02.25 11:53, Christian Feld wrote:
> Dear libtoolers,
> 
> my project uses C, C++, Fortran 77. One library consists of mixed CC and 
> F77 sources. I intend to switch to more modern Fortran (FC) for this 
> library.
> 
> Linking this library with F77LINK worked well. Switching to FCLINK 
> causes errors for some compilers due to broken postedeps_FC.
> 
>   - For HPE Cray PrgEnv-cray's ftn, postedeps_FC contains '... -L -L ...'.
>   - For HPE Cray PrgEnv-gnu's ftn, OpenMPI's and MPICH's mpifort 
> (delegating to gfortran), postedeps_FC contains '... -l -l ...'.
> 
> During investigating the cause of the broken postdeps_FC, several 
> questions arose.
> 
> 1. Why do we have postdeps for CXX and FC, but not for CC and F77? 
> _LT_SYS_HIDDEN_LIBDEPS is expanded in _LT_LANG_CXX_CONFIG and 
> _LT_LANG_FC_CONFIG only.
> 
> 2. Why do we need postdeps at all? Isn't the compiler supposed to do 
> just the right thing?
> 
> 3. Without a C++ compiler (AC_PROG_CXX), postedeps_FC is always empty, 
> as output_verbose_link_cmd, the command producing the input to determine 
> the postdeps, is set in _LT_LANG_CXX_CONFIG only. If this is coupling 
> intended, can you please explain why?
> 
> 
> Now, where do the bogus `... -L -L ...` and `... -l -l ...` come from? 
> The output_verbose_link_cmd used for CXX and FC postdeps is
>      '$CC -shared $CFLAGS -v conftest.$objext 2>&1 | $GREP -v 
> "^Configured with:" | $GREP " [[-]]L"'
> For the compilers mentioned above, the output of this command contains a 
> line starting with 'Driving:', e.g.,
> 
> Driving: /p/software/jedi/stages/2025/software/GCCcore/13.3.0/bin/ 
> gfortran -shared -g -O2 -v conftest.o -I/p/software/default/stages/2025/ 
> software/OpenMPI/5.0.5-GCC-13.3.0/include -I/p/software/default/ 
> stages/2025/software/OpenMPI/5.0.5-GCC-13.3.0/lib -L/p/software/default/ 
> stages/2025/software/OpenMPI/5.0.5-GCC-13.3.0/lib -Wl,-rpath -Wl,/p/ 
> software/default/stages/2025/software/OpenMPI/5.0.5-GCC-13.3.0/lib - 
> Wl,--enable-new-dtags -lmpi_usempif08 -lmpi_usempi_ignore_tkr - 
> lmpi_mpifh -lmpi -l gfortran -l m -shared-libgcc
> 
> The part '-l gfortran -l m' results in '... -l -l ...'
> 
> 
> Lines starting with 'Configured with:' are already omitted in 
> output_verbose_link_cmd. Omitting lines starting with 'Driving:'  as 
> well would fix the invalid postdeps_FC. Note that autoconf's 
> _AC_PROG_FC_V_OUTPUT also omits both, '^Driving:' and '^Configured 
> with:', see [1].
> 
> A patch omitting lines '^Driving:'  is attached. But do we need to 
> expand _LT_SYS_HIDDEN_LIBDEPS for FC at all?
> 
> Thanks,
> Christian
> 
> [1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=blob;f=lib/ 
> autoconf/ 
> fortran.m4;h=cdc197bd67f4abab036cfe6a3a59d16aa712a386;hb=6199cff2909e0ac84c9391aa49ed097d6a33268d#l514

[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.