On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:41:09 -0400 > Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > >> On 3/31/12 1:51 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >> >> > If we want to aim towards a more modular GCC made of several shared >> > libraries, it seems >> > that we are requiring the host system to have dynamic libraries (which is >> > not a big deal >> > today; all the major OSes running on developers desktop or laptop have >> > them). >> >> I don't follow. Modularity does not require shared libraries. > > > Indeed, but when GCC is made of several shared libraries, it would be > modular, since each > such shared library would be defined by a module. > > (I mean that modules are a design thing existing at the source level, and > each shared > library would implement one module; look into GTK/Gnome to feel what I mean: > Pango, > Glib, Gio, Atk, .... are modules there and have libpango.so, libglib.so, > libgio.so, > libatk.so ... at runtime..). > >> >> > In that case, I think that we should always --enable-plugin at configure >> > time, hence >> > making that configure switch useless (since always on). >> >> Plugins are auto-detected on systems that support it and always enabled. > > I've heard that some Linux distributions (perhaps some version of RedHat?) > explicitly > configure with --disable-plugin
SUSE does. And until we get a real plugin API we will continue to do so. Richard.
