Reilly Hayes on 2006-08-10 18:36:49 -0700: > There's one thing I don't entirely understand about the GMP problem. > I understand that there are some limitations on GHC's ability to > generate relocatable (and therefore dynamically linkable) code on x86 > (a register allocation problem related to the mangler if I recall the > comments in the code correctly). But this shouldn't prohibit linking > GMP in dynamically, should it? It's just a C library and GCC should > happily generate relocatable code. As a dynamically linked library, > there should be no tainting issues to worry about even if the > dynamically linked code is shipped with the executable. > > Am I missing something?
No, the LGPL doesn't mandate source redistribution when you redistribute a binary that is dynamically linked to a LGPL-licensed library. If GHC did support dynamically linking programs, it wouldn't be an issue, but GHC only supports that on OS X. I was wondering something similar - is it really easier to replace the functionality and speed of GMP than to extend GHC's dynamic library support to other platforms?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
