|
|
Blitz Support : |
From: Julian C. Cummings (cummings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-05 17:58:41
Hi Frank,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blitz-support-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:blitz-support-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of
> Frank Schimmel
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 3:02 AM
> To: Support list for Blitz++
> Subject: Re: [Blitz-support] automake, autoconf
>
>
> What about just dumping shared library support and thereby
> libtool? The static lib isn't really that big anyway
> (libblitz.a is just 18k on this solaris box).
>
> So: is a shared lib really needed? Opinions?
> -Frank
I would agree with this suggestion. It is not critical to have a shared
version of the Blitz library because it is so small anyway. And it is
trivial to create a shared library manually with your favorite linker if you
really need to have it. There are other problems with libtool as well. It
doesn't cope well with situations in which the C++ compiler must be used as
the linker and requires special flags to be passed to it. Also, libtool is
being used to manage the linking of executables such as the testsuite codes.
It does something funky where it places the executables in a secret .libs
subdirectory and then wraps each executable with a script to run the
executable. Presumably this is done in order to manage run-time library
paths and such. But the scripts don't seem to work right on some Unix
platforms. As a result, I've ended up using the --disable-shared option
whenever I configure Blitz.
Frank, do you have enough automake/autoconf expertise to take a swing at
excising the libtool support from the present Blitz make system? I know
that I don't. I would be happy if someone from the community could work out
the necessary changes for the entire Blitz package and submit them.
Regards, Julian C.