This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: [PATCH] Build libgcj, libgcj-tools, and libffi as shared libraries on Windows
- From: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Aaron W. LaFramboise" <aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com>
- Cc: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:22:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Build libgcj, libgcj-tools, and libffi as shared libraries on Windows
- References: <48B0BD19.8080300@aaronwl.com> <49E02E0F.6040503@gmail.com> <49E0D010.4070106@aaronwl.com>
Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
> This stuff is slightly incomplete, as it really needs a DEF-generation
> thing, probably with some sort of versioned ordinal thing, or this will
> have awful storage and load-time performance. I had started on this,
> and I can submit a patch for this if you have not already started
> working on this.
Yes, at the moment it just relies on everything being auto exported, it
would be very helpful if you've got something going for a map file.
> I have no objections to any of this going in though, except for the below.
>
>> Index: gcc/config/i386/t-cygming
>
>> +jc1$(exeext): LDFLAGS+=-Wl,-stack,0x8000000
>
> I think it would be better to figure out why the top-level LDFLAGS does
> not get propagated properly into java as it does for every other
> language, rather than sticking in this hack.
Two questions:
- Why "hack"? It's a robust mechanism specified in the GNU Make manual as
far as I know.
- What does this have to do with the top-level LDFLAGS? I didn't change them
because I don't want cc1 and cc1plus to also have 128meg of stack, do I?
cheers,
DaveK