Monday, April 25, 2005, 5:52:42 PM, jerry gay via RT wrote:
> On 4/23/05, Ron Blaschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IMHO, compilation and linkage feels quite messy as a whole. I am not
>> sure how to get the current link command to look like the one above,
>> without doing something akin to F<dynclasses/build.pl>
>> (cf line 40+).
> totally agree. it's a mess to fix. modifying
> config/gen/makefiles/pge.in at least gets the command syntax right:
[snip]
> - $(LD) $(LD_SHARE_FLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -o pge$(SO) pge_parse$(O)
> pge_gen$(O) pge_opt$(O) pge_parsep5$(O) pge_parseglob$(O)
> + $(LD) $(LD_SHARE_FLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) ${ld_out}pge$(SO)
> pge_parse$(O) pge_gen$(O) pge_opt$(O) pge_parsep5$(O)
Yup, got that far, too. ;-)
> ... but since $(LD_SHARE_FLAGS) has -def:libparrot.def hardcoded, it's
> troublesome as it breaks the linker when building pge.dll. i'm working
> on it, but it's slow going.
Hmm, I am wondering if it would make sense to build an abstraction to
the compiler and linker, similar to the C<ExtUtils::Command> stuff.
Or completely separate the Windows build process from the UNIX
way, eg with makefiles similar to the F<config/gen/platform>
structure.
Ron
