Re: New acinclude.m4
От | Adam H. Pendleton |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New acinclude.m4 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2FF78D95-98EC-4528-BA89-013550E7E82F@fmonkey.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: New acinclude.m4 (Raphaël Enrici <blacknoz@club-internet.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: New acinclude.m4
|
Список | 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
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: