Re: v2: gcc and static linking

From: Andre Hentz (ahentz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-22 15:46:04

Hi Volodya,

thanks for answering my questions.

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Anyway, I believe that in your case library order is not an issue? If so, I'd 
> recomment using linkflags for a while, until more users come complaining.

I'll do that.

>>	using gcc : : : : <linker>sun ;
>>
>>And <linker> default to gnu. It may also be possible to automagically
>>figure out which linker is being used by gcc. The whole point is that
>>compiler and linker options are orthogonal.
> 
> 
> This is a good idea. In fact, some other questions, like "is this cygwin or 
> mingw, or what version of gcc", can be easily answered with additional 
> options to "using". 

Good. I'm afraid that this new way of specifying options to 'using' 
conflicts a bit with the recently introduced "compiler-options" and 
"linker-options". What do you think?

> 
> +# Goes throuh the given-options and find one that matched
> +# <option-name>value. Returns 'value' if found or $(default)
> +# otherwise.
> +rule get-option ( toolset : option-name : default : given-options ? )
(snip)
> What's the point of 'toolset' parameter? I don't see it being used in the rule 
> body.
>
> Also, I think this rule is better defined be 'common.get-toolset-option', 
> since it's not necessary gcc-specific. Otherwise, your patch looks fine and 
> I'll be happy to apply it once we solve the above question.
>
I agree with you. That's why the 'toolset' parameter is there, even 
though it is not used yet.

> Thanks,
> Volodya

Thank you.

Best,

Andre Hentz