From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16378 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2003 15:48:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16369 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2003 15:48:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.brainstorm.co.uk) (217.169.5.196) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2003 15:48:28 -0000 Received: from nicola.brainstorm.co.uk (nicola.brainstorm.co.uk [192.168.4.138]) by mail.brainstorm.co.uk (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h02Fm1G14243; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:48:01 GMT Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 15:48:00 -0000 From: Nicola Pero To: "Andrea 'fwyzard' Bocci" cc: Matthias Klose , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [3.2/3.3/HEAD] shared libobjc not built In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030102162946.00b27d60@popmail.libero.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 > >gcc configured without explicit --enabled-shared builds shared > >libraries for libstdc++, libgcj, etc, but not for libobjc (i386-linux) > >Is this intended? libobjc's configure sets the default to disabled. > > From : > >--enable-shared[=package[,...]] > >Build shared versions of libraries, if shared libraries are supported on > >the target platform. Unlike GCC 2.95.x and earlier, shared libraries are > >enabled by default on all platforms that support shared libraries, except > >for libobjc which is built as a static library only by default. > >If a list of packages is given as an argument, build shared libraries only > >for the listed packages. For other packages, only static libraries will be > >built. Package names currently recognized in the GCC tree are libgcc (also > >known as gcc), libstdc++ (not libstdc++-v3), libffi, zlib, boehm-gc and > >libjava. Note that libobjc does not recognize itself by any name, so, if > >you list package names in --enable-shared, you will only get static > >Objective-C libraries. libf2c and libiberty do not support shared > >libraries at all. > > 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!