[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: flat namespaces redux
From: |
Albert Chin |
Subject: |
Re: flat namespaces redux |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:46:33 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:59:03PM -0600, Robert Boehne wrote:
> Maybe I don't understand OS X, but as I see it, any library
> that needs a two level namespace would not build on any other OS
> because OS X is the only OS that supports this feature.
> Now, if that is the case, it doesn't make any sense for Libtool
> (a tool for portable library creation & use) to support a feature
> that is only present on a single platform. Does that make sense?
I think we should support the two-level namespace, even if it is
OSX-specific. I look at libtool more as a way to easily build shared
libraries across multiple platforms.
Think about AIX. An AIX shared library (non-brtl) can contain *both* a
static and shared member. We don't emulate this across all platforms.
And, how about this warning in ltmain.in (a non-portable feature):
echo "*** Warning: Linking the shared library $output against the"
echo "*** static library $deplib is not portable!"
deplibs="$deplib $deplibs"
--
albert chin (address@hidden)
- flat namespaces redux, Benjamin Reed, 2003/02/02
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Benjamin Reed, 2003/02/02
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Peter O'Gorman, 2003/02/03
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Benjamin Reed, 2003/02/03
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Peter O'Gorman, 2003/02/03
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Albert Chin, 2003/02/03
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Robert Boehne, 2003/02/04
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Yves de Champlain, 2003/02/04
- Re: flat namespaces redux,
Albert Chin <=
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Robert Boehne, 2003/02/04
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Albert Chin, 2003/02/04
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Robert Boehne, 2003/02/04
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Benjamin Reed, 2003/02/06