On Jun 27, 2012, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Why? We don't demand a working plugin. Indeed, we disable the use of >> the plugin if we find a linker that doesn't support it. We just don't >> account for the possibility of finding a linker that supports plugins, >> but that doesn't support the one we'll build later.
> If this is the preferred solution, then having configure check the > 64-bitness of ld and turning off the plugin altogether on mismatches > sounds like a reasonable course of action to me. I'd very be surprised if I asked for an i686 native build to package and install elsewhere, and didn't get a plugin just because the build-time linker wouldn't have been able to run the plugin. -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer