On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:21:59AM -0600, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> We did have everything libtoolized at one point and from a management
> it ended up being a lot more hassle than it's worth. The
> simgear/flightgear libs are so closely tied that you rally get little
> benefit from making the shar
Kain writes:
> I've libtoolized the makefiles for current CVS for SimGear and
> FlightGear. This allows GNU make to properly handle the
> dependencies for SMP (parallel) compile.
>
> This naturally speeds up compiles significantly. Does anyone want the diffs?
Bryon,
It would be interesting to
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:43:28AM +0100, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Do you use libtool to generate shared object libraries, or juts static
> libraries? People have pointed out that using shared objects in C++
> doesn't work all that great, especially in a development environment
> (like FlightGear).
Good Day Kian
Please sent me your diffs
Thanx in advance
Roman
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Kain wrote:
I've libtoolized the makefiles for current CVS for SimGear and FlightGear. This allows GNU make to properly handle the dependencies for SMP (parallel) compile.
This naturally speeds up compiles significantly. Does anyone want the diffs?
Do you use libtool to generate shared object
I've libtoolized the makefiles for current CVS for SimGear and FlightGear. This
allows GNU make to properly handle the dependencies for SMP (parallel) compile.
This naturally speeds up compiles significantly. Does anyone want the diffs?
--
Bryon Roche
Professional {Developer,Guru,Mad Scientis
