This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] Disable static build for libjava
- From: Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>
- To: David Daney <david dot daney at cavium dot com>
- Cc: GCJ-patches <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:57:18 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] Disable static build for libjava
- References: <4E15DE84.5030809@ubuntu.com> <4E15E3F6.3050502@cavium.com>
On 07/07/2011 06:51 PM, David Daney wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 09:27 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> As discussed at the Google GCC gathering, disable the build of static libraries
>> in libjava, which should cut the build time of libjava by 50%. The static
>> libjava build isn't useful out of the box, and I don't see it packaged by Linux
>> distributions either.
>>
>> The AC_PROG_LIBTOOL check is needed to get access to the enable_shared macro.
>> I'm unsure about the check in the switch construct. Taken from libtool.m4, and
>> determining the value of enable_shared_with_static_runtimes.
>>
>> Ok for the trunk?
>>
>> 2011-07-07 Matthias Klose<doko@ubuntu.com>
>>
>> * Makefile.def (target_modules/libjava): Pass
>> $(libjava_disable_static).
>> * configure.ac: Check for libtool, pass --disable-static
>> in libjava_disable_static.
>> * Makefile.in: Regenerate.
>> * configure: Likewise.
>>
>
> My autoconf fu is not what it used to be. It is fine if static libraries are
> disabled by default, but it should be possible to enable them from the configure
> command line. It is unclear to me if this patch does that.
no. I assume an extra option --enable-static-libjava would be needed.
> Also I would like to go on record as disagreeing with the statement that 'static
> libjava build isn't useful out of the box'
I remember that there were some restrictions with the static library. but maybe
I'm wrong.
Matthias