On Sep 7, 2004, at 2:20 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 01:00:40PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
True, but this is one that I'm hitting a lot, especially
with the increase in cache development going on...
Then fix your build environment, or work out how the httpd build system
can be improved to avoid the issue in general. Munging the code is not
the answer.
Geez...
Here's the scenario:
1. Build httpd
2. Now build mod_cache as a DSO with apxs
3. Now try to load it in and run it
You'll see that this results in a dependency on libgcc.
Do we *want* a dependency on libgcc? I don't think so.
And from what I can tell, it's only this area of code
with our bundled module that causes it.
I don't care a fig about trying to determine where libgcc
is or what compiler flags forces libgcc or any of that
crud. I want to avoid our modules having a dependency
on it. And I don't care if it's "impossible" for us
to avoid it with all the 3rd party modules out there;
if their stuff requires libgcc to allow for it to
be used without recompiling httpd, I couldn't care
less. I'm only worrying about *our* stuff.
I'm certainly understand and support the POV that
munging the code is ugly, but I can't understand
this disregard about "so if we require it (libgcc)
we require it..."
