From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-04 20:34:42
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Matelich" <sosedada_at_[hidden]>
> I can't give you a canonical answer, but I'll share what I know. A shared
> library must be built with PIC object files. Anything can be built with
> code, but linking will be slower for static entities than if you didn't
> PIC. I can't remember if PIC code runs slower, but I don't think so.
> Regarding your transitive assumption, things are peculiar. On Linux (ELF
> format), a shared library can link in a static library even if the static
> library was not built PIC. On HP-UX (not ELF), anything linked into a
> library must be build PIC. So, it is tempting to build everything PIC
> of platforms like HP-UX.
I guess I'd like a more definitive answer about whether there's a downside
> I would have expected Jam to have already figured this stuff out.
They may have, but since our needs are different than the ones they address
with the built-in Jambase, we can't just use their approach and expect it to
work for us.
> If you're in
> the mood to look at a different build system, you could get tmake from
> ftp.trolltech.com/pub/freebies/tmake. They have a hierarchical system of
> regarding building apps and libs on many platform-compiler combinations.
Requires Perl; generates makefiles; doesn't support Mac.
I think this fails to be adequate for boost on many counts. I don't know
about the licensing terms.
> Alternatively, qmake (c++ implementation) is bundled into the qt 2.30 beta
> adds support for Mac.
Not! (?) At least I downloaded the 2.3 "free release" and grepped the files
for "qmake" coming up empty!
> I was going to suggest boost look at qmake, but I don't know if they go as
> with things like debug and release. Otherwise, their .pro file format is
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk