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

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
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 :-)


Have a nice weekend,
You also.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]