From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4500 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2003 16:32:48 -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 4479 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2003 16:32:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.brainstorm.co.uk) (217.169.5.196) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2003 16:32:44 -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 h02GWPG17216; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:32:25 GMT Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 16:32:00 -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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030102165747.00b27e20@popmail.inwind.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 > > > 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.