CVS build error with new sort

[Thomas Treichl]

John Swensen schrieb:
> The symbol demangles to
> octave_sort<int>::set_compare(bool (*)(int, int))
> 
> John Swensen
> 
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 2:55 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> 
>> On  3-Feb-2008, John Swensen wrote:
>>
>> | I am trying to build the most recent CVS (as of 2008/02/03 about 8PM)
>> | and am having a linker error involving the new sort stuff for sparse
>> | matrices.  When trying to link liboctave.dylib, I get the following
>> | error:
>> | ld: duplicate symbol __ZN11octave_sortIiE11set_compareEPFbiiE in pic/
>> | Array-i.o and pic/sparse-sort.o
>>
>> I don't know why this is happening.  I don't see this problem, but I'm
>> not using OS X.
>>
>> Demangling the above symbol name doesn't work for me.  What is the
>> result of
>>
>>  echo __ZN11octave_sortIiE11set_compareEPFbiiE | c++filt
>>
>> on your system?
>>
>> jwe

I got through the compilation process with the latest CVS sources by adding 
"-Xlinker -m" to my LDFLAGS -- without these flags it still fails, so it seems 
to me that the compiler is out of 'sort'-names?!

I may borrow the necessary description from the 'ld' manpage:

<somewhere in the manpage>
     When  creating  an  output  file  with  the  static  link  editor  when
     -twolevel_namespace is in effect (now the default) all undefined refer-
     ences  must be satisfied at static link time.
<somewhere else in the manpage>
   -m (32-bit only)
     Don't  treat multiply defined symbols from the linked objects as
     a hard error; instead, simply print a warning.  The first linked
     object  defining such a symbol is used for linking; its value is
     used for the symbol in the symbol table.  The code and data  for
     all such symbols are copied into the output.  The duplicate sym-
     bols other than the first symbol may still end up being used  in
     the  resulting  output  file through local references.  This can
     still produce a resulting output file that is  in  error.   This
     flag's use is strongly discouraged!

After that 'make check' tells me

   PASS   3989
   FAIL      0

so I hope tests are already included for the new 'sort'-modifications?

I don't know if this is the right way for fixing this problem and if there are 
other flags available instead. I found other projects at the Internet that tell 
us about similar 'multiply defined whatever' problems on Mac and I need to have 
a look how they solved that problem and then will be back to this thread in a 
few days hopefully with a better solution.

   Thomas

PS. John if you are faster than me finding better flags on your Mac then please 
let me know.