Preben Randhol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/07/2003 (11:23) : >> Preben Randhol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > What do you mean? That it is a bad idea at the moment as nothing is >> > stable or that it is a bad idea whenever? I don't agree with the >> > latter. >> >> What do you propose? Upstream is still at the beginning of shared >> library support. They use rpath and have a very unusual versioning >> scheme (ldconfig complains about it). Upstream obviously doesn't >> expect that people move dynamically linked executables from one >> machine to the other. > > I see I didn't know it wasn't supported yet. So when shared library > support is in place in gcc 3.x or 4.x, then one can have shared > libraries? What I was trying to say is that I hope one can eventually > have shared libraries so my Ada applications compiled with gcc does not > become 3 times bigger as they are with Gnat 3.14p or 3.15p. But it > sounded like somebody thought this was a bad idea at any time.
The main problem I see is that there are risks that GNAT releases are not synced with GCC versions and that it makes hard to track ABI changes. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
