On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> wrote: >> I was wondering why you considered the auto linking stuff to be so horrible. >> IMO the best solution would be to get auto link support into GCC too. > > It's non standard > - it's not specified by ISO C > - it's not specified by SUS/POSIX
So? > It's not portable > - it uses vendor-specific #pragma magic > > It's fragile > - every header must include the auto-link magic, either directly or > indirectly. If you forget to do this just once in a single file, > linking will break Sounds like an easy-to-solve hypothetical problem. > If it were incorporated into GCC, we still couldn't use it > - it's not backward compatible with other UNIX compilers > - it's not backward compatible with itself Who is we? Do we need that kind of backwards compatibility? > Now, pkg-config isn't standardised /either/, but it's useful because > it will work with any standards-conforming compiler. It's just a > generalisation of existing practice (in the form of foo-config > scripts generated during a package build). Pkg-config probably isn't bad, but it does increase the complexity of build script. Especially compared to auto linking. > But this is all moot. I've written the pkg-config support into the > auto-link header, and we just need to integrate it into the build > system to get the job done. How does pkg-config handle the selection of the threading variant? Toolset-variant? Seems it's hard-coded to a single variant. Olaf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikhqgycknje7v4ehnmjo0qyj-=smaog7fjit...@mail.gmail.com
