Re: List of FTBFS in Ubuntu
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> wrote:
>> I was wondering why you considered the auto linking stuff to be so horrible.
>> IMO the best solution would be to get auto link support into GCC too.
>
> It's non standard
> - it's not specified by ISO C
> - it's not specified by SUS/POSIX
So?
> It's not portable
> - it uses vendor-specific #pragma magic
>
> It's fragile
> - every header must include the auto-link magic, either directly or
> indirectly. If you forget to do this just once in a single file,
> linking will break
Sounds like an easy-to-solve hypothetical problem.
> If it were incorporated into GCC, we still couldn't use it
> - it's not backward compatible with other UNIX compilers
> - it's not backward compatible with itself
Who is we?
Do we need that kind of backwards compatibility?
> Now, pkg-config isn't standardised /either/, but it's useful because
> it will work with any standards-conforming compiler. It's just a
> generalisation of existing practice (in the form of foo-config
> scripts generated during a package build).
Pkg-config probably isn't bad, but it does increase the complexity of
build script. Especially compared to auto linking.
> But this is all moot. I've written the pkg-config support into the
> auto-link header, and we just need to integrate it into the build
> system to get the job done.
How does pkg-config handle the selection of the threading variant?
Toolset-variant? Seems it's hard-coded to a single variant.
Olaf
Reply to: