This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.2/3.3/HEAD] shared libobjc not built
- From: Nicola Pero <nicola at brainstorm dot co dot uk>
- To: "Andrea 'fwyzard' Bocci" <fwyzard at inwind dot it>
- Cc: Matthias Klose <doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:32:25 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: [3.2/3.3/HEAD] shared libobjc not built
> > > So, yes, I think it's intended, but I don't know why.
> >
> >I don't know either ... I don't remember - maybe a historical leftover ?
> >
> >I think if shared libraries are supported, libobjc should be built as
> >shared. It should definitely be built as shared, why building it
> >statically ? A static libobjc is usually more of a problem than a shared
> >one!
>
> I don't actually use, ObjC, so I don't really know about it But I always
> build with --enable-shared, just to be sure :-)
> Maybe some Knowledgeable Person here can aswer that...
Hmmm ... I suspected to have originally wrote/submitted the lines
# Disable shared libs by default
AC_DISABLE_SHARED
of libobjc/configure.in myself; now checking the CVS and ChangeLog entries
confirmed it. I don't remember any reason why I wanted to disable shared
libs, and I think that the reason of disabling shared libs by default was
just that, being the switch to build libobjc as shared an experimental
change to libobjc at the time, I was being conservative.
Since we have tested this a lot now (more than two years of testing is
enough I presume :-), I don't see any reason to keep shared libs disabled
by default now, if shared libs are available on the platform. It's stupid
and it just makes configuring GCC for Objective-C more troublesome.
Nor do I see any reason to keep the libobjc building and configuring
process different from the one used by other shared libs included in GCC.