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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
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
Precedence: bulk


> 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