This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] releases.html
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 01:14:20PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Zack" == Zack Weinberg <email@example.com> writes:
> Zack> Hm, I could have explained myself better. I'm aware of the
> Zack> total complexity of metaconfig. However, it seems to me that
> Zack> the complexity of its dynamic library/module support is far
> Zack> smaller than the complexity of libtool, for roughly equivalent
> Zack> functionality. There is no heavyweight compiler wrapper script,
> Zack> only a straightforward set of additional Makefile variables
> Zack> (LDDLFLAGS etc.)
> One problem is historical. My recollection is that Gord specifically
> designed libtool to be independent of autoconf. So instead of doing
> the "obvious" thing (write some autoconf macros and then rely on the
> Makefile to get things right), instead he built all the configury
> stuff into libtool itself.
I did not know that. That explains a lot, in particular why the
libtool script is so heavyweight.
> I imagine the decision to support building both shared and static
> libraries at once probably also increased the size of libtool quite a
Yabbut, thing is, I can do that in twenty lines of Makefile on any
platform that doesn't care what the extension of object files is. Or
I can do it shorter and without weird extensions on any platform where
it's okay to put -fPIC code in a static library.
LIBFOO_OBJS = a.o b.o c.o d.o
LIBFOO_SO_OBJS = a.os b.os c.os d.os
PICFLAG = @picflag@
SHARED = @shared@
-rm -f libfoo.a
$(AR) cr libfoo.a $(LIBFOO_OBJS)
-rm -f libfoo.so
$(CC) $(SHARED) $(LDFLAGS) -o libfoo.so $(LIBFOO_SO_OBJS)
.SUFFIXES: .o .os
$(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $<
$(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $(PICFLAG) -o $@ $<
A small amount of additional complexity is required to handle sonames,
ELF version scripts, and getting the proper suffix on the shared
Random thought: what if we made
gcc -staticlib -o libfoo.a a.o b.o c.o ...
run ar and possibly ranlib as appropriate to the target?