Yes, it's wrong indeed.
cheers, felix On 2/13/06, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > felix winkelmann wrote: > On 2/13/06, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is C_NO_PIC_NO_DLL really important? It is used for static libraries, > and Makefile.am has the following notation: > > # we add -DC_NO_PIC_NO_DLL seperately so that chicken-config does not > # use -DC_NO_PIC_NO_DLL ... -DC_NO_PIC_NO_DLL is only for libtool > # compiles > > > It's needed to compile statically linked apps on Windows. It's a bit > clunky, but does the job and should not bother the user as long > as he/she is using csc. > > So is the comment "-DC_NO_PIC_NO_DLL is only for libtool compiles" wrong > then? > > > Cheers, > Brandon Van Every > > > _______________________________________________ > Chicken-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users > > > _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
