Re: [patch] Disable static build for libjava

[David Daney <david dot daney at cavium dot com>]

On 07/07/2011 09:57 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> 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.

Not being a libjava maintainer, I cannot force you to add something like 
that as part of the patch, but I think it would be a good idea.

> > 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.

There are restrictions, but it is still useful for some embedded 
environments.

David Daney