Ok, here it is. This patch changes AC_LIBTOOL_PROG_COMPILER_PIC
so that it only appends -DPIC to the default "C" tag and the CXX
tag for C++. I would also like to deprecate -DPIC in the 1.5 release
to make it clear we intend to do away with it. I would also like
to ask anyone who does depend on
Robert,
> Ok, here it is. This patch changes AC_LIBTOOL_PROG_COMPILER_PIC
> so that it only appends -DPIC to the default "C" tag and the CXX
> tag for C++. I would also like to deprecate -DPIC in the 1.5 release
> to make it clear we intend to do away with it. I would also like
> to ask anyone
Simon Richter schrieb:
Robert,
Ok, here it is. This patch changes AC_LIBTOOL_PROG_COMPILER_PIC
so that it only appends -DPIC to the default "C" tag and the CXX
tag for C++. I would also like to deprecate -DPIC in the 1.5 release
to make it clear we intend to do away with it. I would also lik
Wouldn't replacing -DPIC with -D__PIC__ break a fundamental
assumption about ANSI compilers, that "__" means compiler-defined
and not in the userspace?
IMHO, I have yet to see an example of how it could be useful
to define "PIC" when it seems that the only way to make use of
it is to have it surro
Boehne, Robert schrieb:
Wouldn't replacing -DPIC with -D__PIC__ break a fundamental
assumption about ANSI compilers, that "__" means compiler-defined
and not in the userspace?
[...]
#if (defined(__pic__) || defined(__PIC__)) && !defined(PIC)
#define PIC 1
#endif
The main problem with remo
Boehne, Robert schrieb:
IMHO, I have yet to see an example of how it could be useful
to define "PIC" when it seems that the only way to make use of
it is to have it surround severely implementation-specific stuff
like inline assembler in which case the compiler _should_ be defining
"__PIC__" or s
Title: RE: [PATCH] Re: Problem on rs6000-ibm-aix4.3.2.0 (Fortran) -DPIC
Guido,
Can you show me an example of a situation where there is
pic and non-pic code created by a compiler that doesn't define
some preprocessor macro for PIC?
Then if you find one, does it support inline assembl
bert
-Original Message-
From: Guido Draheim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:51 AM
To: Boehne, Robert
Cc: Simon Richter; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Problem on rs6000-ibm-aix4.3.2.0 (Fortran)
-DPIC
Boehne, Robert schrieb:
>
> IMHO, I have yet
Robert Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I would also like
> to ask anyone who does depend on this to let us know when/where/why &
> how
> so we can add a section to the documentation on how to modify
> code to not need -DPIC.
In GMP we have assembler code (mainly i386) which understands it h
"Boehne, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Wouldn't replacing -DPIC with -D__PIC__ break a fundamental
> assumption about ANSI compilers, that "__" means compiler-defined
> and not in the userspace?
I had an idea FOO was for applications, _FOO for the compiler, and
__FOO for third party libr
Kevin,
Yet again I am suprised by the diversity of uses for Libtool,
I hadn't imagined this m4->asm script. I am curious as to what tag
it uses, the plain old C (empty) tag?
I think yours is the most valid point I've seen so far for
keeping some libtool-defined macro around, but if you only su
Robert Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Yet again I am suprised by the diversity of uses for Libtool,
> I hadn't imagined this m4->asm script. I am curious as to what tag
> it uses, the plain old C (empty) tag?
Yes, the rule for automake looks like
.asm.lo:
$(LIBTOOL) --mode=compil
Robert Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> How about an option to "configure" --define-for-pic="-DPIC"? Users
> could defeine whatever symbol they like, rather than Libtool specifying
> this.
You mean an option to the libtool script? Sounds ok. I wouldn't
think it'd need to be an actual conf
Kevin,
All good ideas, and I don't really have a preference for any of them.
If you do, let me know or I'll just pick the one that looks easiest.
Robert
Kevin Ryde wrote:
>
> Robert Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > How about an option to "configure" --define-for-pic="-DPIC"? Users
>
Invoking the 72-hour rule and checking this in.
Robert
Robert Boehne wrote:
>
> Ok, here it is. This patch changes AC_LIBTOOL_PROG_COMPILER_PIC
> so that it only appends -DPIC to the default "C" tag and the CXX
> tag for C++. I would also like to deprecate -DPIC in the 1.5 release
> to make it
Robert Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> All good ideas, and I don't really have a preference for any of them.
> If you do, let me know or I'll just pick the one that looks easiest.
I'd think an autoconf macro would be ok, to be used for instance
AC_LIBTOOL_PICDEF([-DPIC])
AC
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:13:54AM +1000, Kevin Ryde wrote:
> Robert Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > All good ideas, and I don't really have a preference for any of them.
> > If you do, let me know or I'll just pick the one that looks easiest.
>
> I'd think an autoconf macro would be ok
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Is setting a custom -DPIC really necessary?
I wouldn't think so. It's just if it's going to be removed then a way
to ask for it back would be nice.
> How about we just leave the existing -DPIC for the C and C++ tags?
Sounds good to me.
_
Albert,
The intent here is to satisfy those who want -DPIC but remove all
macro definition by default. I agree with the suggestion earlier
in this thread of adding a new macro AC_LIBTOOL_PICDEF([PIC])
and we'll plan on this for the release after the next one.
Thanks,
Robert
Albert Chin wrote:
19 matches
Mail list logo
