"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>- the logic is fixed so that linking with g++ is only done if >>> main is in ccpython.o >> >> >> I don't see how that works. Somehow we need to decide whether to put >> main in ccpython.o in the first place, don't we? > > Yes, that is done through --with-cxx (alone). However, the decision > to use CXX for linking is independent on whether --with-cxx was > given.
Is the above a description of existing behavior or a behavior you're proposing? > >>>- the configure test is extended to better match current g++ >>> behaviour. >> >> >> What do you have in mind? > > Somebody reported that the test works better for g++ if the > function is marked extern "C". Which function? What does "works better" mean? > This should be done for 2.4 regardless of any other change. > >>>I just checked, and it seems that the logic in use is still somewhat >>>different. If the configure test determines that a C++ main() >>>must be linked with CXX, it unconditionally changes the linker to CXX. >>>The test, in turn, is run always if a C++ compiler was found, >>>i.e. independently of whether --with-cxx was provided. >> >> >> That doesn't match up with reports from my testers who say they can >> run with C++ extension modules from many different GCC versions if >> they just configure their Python --without-cxx. If what you were >> saying were true, wouldn't --without-cxx be ignored on ELF/Linux? > > Ok, it's still different. I see three cases now: > 1. --without-cxx or --with-cxx=no specified. configure does not look > for a C++ compiler, and does not check whether linking needs > to be done with a C++ compiler, and decides to use Modules/python.c. > 2. --with-cxx not given. configure does look for a C++ compiler, > and does check whether linking with the C++ compiler is necessary, > and still uses Modules/python.c > 3. --with-cxx is given. configure requires it to point to a C++ > compiler, performs the linking check, and uses Modules/ccpython.cc. Is the above a description of existing behavior or is it a behavior you're proposing? > It would help discussion if you would use the actual code, too, > instead of just using reports from your testers. I don't know what you mean by "use the actual code." Do you mean, refer to the actual code in the discussion, or do you mean actually building and running Python --without-cxx myself? If the latter, I don't see a reason to repeat what people I trust have already done. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
