depcomp deficiency [was: m4-1.4.7 build feedback]

2006-09-26 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Nelson H. F. Beebe on 9/26/2006 8:51 AM: > Machinetype:Sun W40z (4 CPUs, 2400 MHz AMD64 Opteron, 8GB RAM); > FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE #0 > Configure environment: CC=/usr/bin/c89 CFLAGS=-I/usr/local/include > CXX=/usr/bin/g++ > >

Re: Forcing static link of libstdc++

2006-09-26 Thread Stefan Puiu
On 9/26/06, Mike Melanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The QA process is exactly doubled since there are 2 binaries instead of 1 binary that needs to be run through the formal certification process. I understand that very well. I was just thinking that it might be preferrable than dealing with ra

Re: Forcing static link of libstdc++

2006-09-26 Thread Mike Melanson
Stefan Puiu wrote: Yes, but also making sure the flash plugin can statically link with libstdc++ increased your development effort quite a bit. And if Ralf is correct about the symbol clashes that you can experience because of the way ELF works, I think you agree that the QA extra effort in this

Re: Forcing static link of libstdc++

2006-09-26 Thread Stefan Puiu
(posting this to the list, too) Hi, I'm actually glad you replied. On 9/26/06, Mike Melanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1) Having 2 binaries would immediately double the QA effort. Yes, but also making sure the flash plugin can statically link with libstdc++ increased your development effort

Re: Forcing static link of libstdc++

2006-09-26 Thread Mike Melanson
Stefan Puiu wrote: I also think Ralf's suggestion about parallel versions for libstdc++.so.5 and libstdc++.so.6 is the best; it's fairly easy to have two versions of gcc installed on the Linux build machine, and then use something like g++-3.3 for libstdc++.so.5 and g++-4.0 (or 3.4) for version 6

Re: Forcing static link of libstdc++

2006-09-26 Thread Stefan Puiu
Hi Mike, I've just had the 'pleasure' to deal with the limitations of Flash 7 on Linux, so I would say I'm quite interested in version 9 coming out as soon as possible. That's why this might sound off topic. I also think Ralf's suggestion about parallel versions for libstdc++.so.5 and libstdc++.

Re: Forcing static link of libstdc++

2006-09-26 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello Mike, Bob, * Bob Proulx wrote on Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:41:19AM CEST: > > Unless the shared library is using rpath. In which case it will use > the compiled in path first and only if that fails will it fall back to > using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and if that fails fall back to using whatever is >