Re: [xml] Generating a correct xml2-config for use with --libs

[Gary Pennington <Gary Pennington sun com>]

Igor Zlatkovic wrote:

> > No need to be surprised, it seems like the linker (MSVC?) you 
> > describe and the Sun linker have the same behaviour.
> >    
>
> Aha, okay. The lack of such option in Sun's compiler package would
> surprise me, but since it is there, I'll withhold my surprises for the
> noodle-party tonight :-)
>
> Windows defaults are a bit different. This 'ignore unused libraries'
> option is per defult turned on if the program has been compiled without
> debug info. If the object files have debugging symbols, it is turned
> off. 
>
>  
>
> > The reason I wanted to clean up the xml2-config script is 
> > simply because 
> > I want to help those people who aren't knowledgeable about all the 
> > options which their compilation system supports. Sure, knowledgeable 
> > people can use "-z ignore" and thus remain unaffected by the (in the 
> > case of Solaris and dynamic linking) redundant library 
> > specifications in 
> > xml2-config. However, that's not much help to the vast majority of 
> > application developers who don't know all the linker flags on all the 
> > platforms they develop on.
> >    
>
> Well, you certainly have the superior expirience on Unix in all areas
> and you must know. Still I would say that those application developers
> will learn about the option in due time, namely as soon as they start
> wondering why their apps reference unused libraries. Once they learn,
> they will probably use that option in their programs, regardless if
> xml2-config specifies some extra '-l's or not. This they will do for
> safety, because other libraries thay happen to use have perhaps a less
> friendly config program. Perhaps these application developers are better
> helped if they are made aware of the -z linker option, instead of
> removing the one thing from xml2-config that can show them the way.
It's a good point. However, I heard a story just two days ago about a 
customer of a large multinational computer supplier that would make you 
cry (or laugh in a scary fashion).

The customer, who shall remain nameless to prevent the interest of 
m'learned friends, indicated to an employee of the nameless computer 
organisation that his own employees weren't competent to learn compiler 
options and just wanted "everything to work right out of the box.". They 
couldn't even be relied on to add 'alias cc="cc -xO3"' to their .profile 
file as that was just going to cause problems for them.

What are the chances of such a customer bothering to learn "-z ignore"?

I suppose you could take the Darwinian view on this and leave nature to 
take it's course...

> I don't have the problem, for distributing software in the source form
> is not a common practice on my platform. Those who compile things
> usually know what they are doing... well mostly. I can remember a very
> confused one who failed, then came and accused you for supplying Windows
> binaries.. ehem :-)
:-D

> Have a nice weekend,
> Igor
>  
You also.

Gary