From: | "Adam H(dot) Pendleton" <fmonkey(at)fmonkey(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Raphaël Enrici <blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr> |
Cc: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New acinclude.m4 |
Date: | 2005-05-19 20:41:21 |
Message-ID: | 2FF78D95-98EC-4528-BA89-013550E7E82F@fmonkey.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
On May 19, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Raphaël Enrici wrote:
> Adam H. Pendleton wrote:
>
> I'm glad to be so "rare"... It seems I belong to the 1%: I have a
> dynamic build. ;)
> Please also note that the patch attached reintroduce your code
> concerning the static link of the rest of the libs (libpq and sons).
>
> However, you are the ac guru and I'm fully satisfied by a dynamic
> linking with the new acinclude.m4 (+ the configure.ac patch).
> The real question is:
> - do we still need "full" static linking (at least libpq, ssl,..?).
>
> If yes, then the new acinclude.m4 does not provide it anymore and we
> need to rework on it.
Are you saying that `wx-config --libs` and `wx-config --libs --
static` produce two different outputs on your system? If you built
wx dynamically then either a) the output from --libs --static is
nonsense, or b) it's the same as --libs. Either way, the current
acinclude will link the same way you linked wx.
As for the full static linking, --enable-static never performed a
full static link, it only statically linked against wxWindows.
Personally, I don't like static linking. It creates huge
executables, eats up memory, and slows down performance. We should
link dynamically wherever possible.
ahp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Raphaël Enrici | 2005-05-19 20:54:37 | Re: New acinclude.m4 |
Previous Message | Raphaël Enrici | 2005-05-19 20:30:43 | Re: New acinclude.m4 |