On May 14, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Shawn W. wrote:
On May 14, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Brandon Van Every wrote:
On 5/14/07, Peter Keller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, May
14, 2007 at 11:55:31AM -0400, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> Any static linking horror stories out there?
I CAN'T make statically linked C programs on OS X using the
compiler supplied with Xcode 2.mumble. It's missing a static crt0.o
(There is a crt1.o in /usr/lib. I've never bothered fighting to get
gcc to use that instead.)
Yeah, Apple doesn't support static linking of system libraries, since
10.2 I think.
Ok Mac OS X users, what say you? Should we tie your hands for
your own good, or give you the freedom to cut off your own fingers?
I don't care about static linking. What would be nice is an OS X
framework for the chicken runtime. It'd be a lot easier to
distribute to people who want to run a program written in chicken
without having to install the full thing (Compiler, interpreter,
runtime libraries, etc.). Universal binary support to go along with
that would be nice too. The latter is easy to do. (Add '-arch i386 -
arch ppc' to the cflags used by the chicken compiler, and I /think/
everything will work automagically. I'll test that.)
Yes, /Library/Frameworks/Chicken.framework would be nice.
--
Shawn W.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
