On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, David Berry wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Peter W. Draper wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Starlink Software wrote:
>>
>>> Module: gaia
>>> Status: failed
>>> Build URL: http://dev.starlink.ac.uk/build/MACOSX/logs/gaia.1150248758.log
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> seems moving the SLA C interface has some unintended consequences. I've
>> worked around this problem by now passing any command-line options to the
>> ndf_link and ard_link scripts onto ast_link, to avoid pulling in the C and
>> Fortran versions of SLALIB, but there are no doubt other AST linking
>> options that should really be used consistently.
>
> Doh!
>
> Not sure what the correct solution is to this. What about putting the c
> wrapper module into a separate library in SLALIB, and then having a linker
> option to include it? That is `sla_link` expands to -lsla and
> `sla_link -c` expands to -lsla -lsla_c (where the c wrapper module is
> contained in libsla_c). This solves the problem for existing software and
> for fortran users, but is a bit of a burden for C users.
Yes, that's probably a good idea. Keep these two separate will certainly
offer more flexibility. I suspect most (other) people use -lsla anyway so
might not notice this change going down this route.
Cheers,
Peter.
|