On 16/03/15 23:44, Ian Romanick wrote: > On 03/13/2015 02:32 PM, Emil Velikov wrote: >> * Allow people to static link against libgcc/libstdc++. >> >> Imho this should be option, disabled by default provided at configure >> time. This way builders/distributions can op-in if they choose to do so. > > I'm very strongly opposed to this. > > We already have too many build ABI options. Each and every one of them > has caused some level of support pain (TLS vs. non-TLS, shared glapi vs > non-shared, etc.). I have absolutely no interest in seeing another knob > added. > Perhaps I'm missing something but how is this yet another ABI ? I'm working on nuking the static glapi, although got distracted by other things *cough*this thread*cough*.
As one of the few people working on the build system (props for Matt for helping imensely), I am not at _all_ happy with us having so many configure switches. Although, as you've mentioned before (in a slightly different wording) this is an "evil" solution, but it's a _necessary_ "evil". Clearly people are unhappy if we make this the default for obvious reasons, plus it has a change of breaking someone's workflow. So another configure which it is. If your concern is about supporting such setup, that decision is for you guys to make. Plus the check for static libstdc++/gcc_s is quite trivial so it won't increase the time to triage bugs. Cheers, Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
