From:	"Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:46:27 +0200
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Cc:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Subject:	Re: Package of libtool?
Message-ID:	<20010619194627.C1802@lauras.lt>
Mail-Followup-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10106191429540 DOT 5716-100000 AT acp3bf>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10106191429540.5716-100000@acp3bf>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.18i
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Hm... but doesn't it only do that if building of *shared* libraries is
> active? Since those are a non-issue for DJGPP anyway, can't we just
> disable that whole branch of it once and for all, for a DJGPP port
> (effictively forcing the --disable-shared option for all DJGPP builds)? At
> least to me, that seems like the obvious thing to do.

This is getting hairy and dangerous - IIRC, I've encountered this bug
in GCC because libsupc++ used it with static libs too (!). And maintainers
even had an explanation for this (!!). It is much safer to disable -fPIC 
-DPIC on DJGPP.

Laurynas

- Raw text -