Saturday, May 15, 2004, 6:02:57 PM, Jeff Clites wrote: >> Of course, to build ICU the flags would be necessary, but we're not >> building it directly - we are asking it to build itself, and then we >> just link to the resulting library, which shouldn't need anything >> special. Am I getting things wrong here?
> When linking against ("using") a static library version of ICU, we need > a C++-aware linker (because ICU contains C++ code); with a > dynamic-library version of ICU presumably we wouldn't. > Seemingly, on Unix-ish platforms at least, using 'c++' for the linker > for everything (even for just C code) has worked so far for parrot, but > this might not always be the case. As Andy indicated, I think what this > ultimately does (for some cases) is call 'ld' with a few extra > libraries to link against. Thanks to you guys for clearing things up for me. Seems like life is a little more complicated than I thought. Would it be a good idea to add those additional flags directly to the corresponding CFLAGS_xxx and LFLAGS_xxx? Then we should also skip the xxx_COMMON flags and also put them in those sets. Any opinions? Ron