New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Targets depending on industrial_robot_client link with both swap and non-swap libraries #10
Comments
This seems like the linker would complain about multiple definitions of the same functions/classes. Is this not the case. The port from rosbuild to catkin was not straightforward for these libraries. It's probably worth going back to the rosbuild versions and finding the right catkin equivalent. I'm not sure how to label this? Does this break anything or is it something we can live with? |
re: multiple definitions: I haven't seen any errors, but the resulting binaries show both the non-swap and the swap versions of the libraries in their As for a solution: the rosbuild Perhaps not listing the libraries in the |
The way we link to specific libraries in rosbuild was non-standard. In fact, the convention is that a package exports a single library. Because we cannot follow this convention, we specifically identify the library we want to link against. It would be nice to do something similar in catkin (I think this is what gavanderhoorn is alluding to in his comment above). |
@shaun-edwards: yes, I was refering to the way we did things with rosbuild. I currently don't link against |
Fix for issue #10 (exporting of library files)
Issued fixed by merged pull request |
Fix ros-industrial#10: Update abb_moveit_plugins for compatibility with latest MoveIt API
Seems to be due to the
catkin_package(... LIBRARIES ..)
statement in theCMakeLists.txt
forindustrial_robot_client
.simple_message
has a similar problem, resulting in one target linking with bothlibsimple_message.so
andlibsimple_message_bswap.so
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: