Saturday, May 15, 2004, 6:02:57 PM, Jeff Clites wrote:
>> Of course, to build ICU the flags would be necessary, but we're not
>> building it directly - we are asking it to build itself, and then we
>> just link to the resulting library, which shouldn't need anything
>> special. Am I getting things wrong here?
> When linking against ("using") a static library version of ICU, we need
> a C++-aware linker (because ICU contains C++ code); with a
> dynamic-library version of ICU presumably we wouldn't.
> Seemingly, on Unix-ish platforms at least, using 'c++' for the linker
> for everything (even for just C code) has worked so far for parrot, but
> this might not always be the case. As Andy indicated, I think what this
> ultimately does (for some cases) is call 'ld' with a few extra
> libraries to link against.
Thanks to you guys for clearing things up for me. Seems like life is
a little more complicated than I thought.
Would it be a good idea to add those additional flags directly to the
corresponding CFLAGS_xxx and LFLAGS_xxx? Then we should also skip the
xxx_COMMON flags and also put them in those sets. Any opinions?
Ron
