This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ PATCH] Implement new "force_static" attribute
- From: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:33:58 -0400
- Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] Implement new "force_static" attribute
- References: <1372693018 dot 1789 dot 110 dot camel at surprise> <CAAiZkiA2ZStotaV_qM=9CYqarQ0-mffHqGGe3aHjNxNNS37nbA at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1307020749460 dot 3919 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <CAAiZkiATYiSKLjKM_r+9hOzpnineAaM1W-3N0B6D1cs9vw3s2g at mail dot gmail dot com> <1372784462 dot 6455 dot 79 dot camel at surprise> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1307022046560 dot 28677 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 20:49 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, David Malcolm wrote:
> > So I envisage a "--enable-shared" configuration switch to opt-in to the
> > shared library code, but I want as minimize the difference between the
> > two cases.
> --enable-host-shared or --enable-shared-gcc or some other such option
> name, please, not plain --enable-shared with currently refers to the
> libraries built for the target. Whether the target libraries should be
> shared libraries is a choice completely independent of whether to build
> GCC itself as a shared library
Good catch; thanks. I've added a note on this to my plan doc. 
> (or libraries? - since you have lots of
> separate front ends that don't currently expect to be linked together,
> although actually making it possible to link them together is probably
> only a few days' work).
I think a lot of this will be dependent on Andrew's big frontend vs
backend cleanup, but yes, multiple libraries would be much nicer.