From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23933 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 19:28:37 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 19:28:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 16014 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2001 19:28:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14044 Received: (qmail 16002 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 19:28:30 -0000 Sender: kiddleo Message-ID: <3ADF3C5B.A508F9E2@u.genie.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:28:27 +0100 From: Oliver Kiddle X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: honor STRIPFLAGS for modules References: <20010418213942.A15845@dman.com> <3ADEC96C.5D8DC609@u.genie.co.uk> <20010419084000.A18361@dman.com> <3ADF1D4C.EAE735E3@u.genie.co.uk> <20010419134611.A370@dman.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Clint Adams wrote: > > > Does zsh_SEARCH_LIBS really need to do everything with AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC > > then - couldn't it just save and restore LIBS and use AC_SEARCH_LIBS? > > It could. I thought that this way would be cleaner. How would you If it's a choice between configure or configure.in being cleaner, I'd favour keeping configure.in cleaner because it is the one which has to be understood by humans. I envisioned zsh_SEARCH_LIBS as just being save LIBS, call AC_SEARCH_LIBS, restore LIBS making it simpler but I probably am missing half its point such as if it needs to know what was added to LIBS. > determine what had been added by AC_SEARCH_LIBS in that event? On the basis that we're limited to compatible /bin/sh code, comparing SAVELIBS to LIBS isn't easy so fair enough. > Well, this does have the side effect of having -l{termcap,curses,ncurses} > being duplicated if they are one and the same for termcap and terminfo. > The issue was not redundant libraries, however; it was unused libraries. I'm not sure that I understand the difference. I only just realised that on Linux termcap and curses are symlinked - yuk. So I guess the initial patch was removing the duplicates by doing symbol searches to detect if termcap/curses are one and the same which is fair enough provided there is some tangible benefit of not linking both. If you say it makes a difference on Linux then fine. I'm just not clear on why it was an improvement other than possibly making the compile system cleaner. If I'm asking stupid questions, ignore me: normally I'd have assumed you know what you're doing and kept quiet if I didn't fully understand but in this case I'm afraid I didn't. So, this latest patch seems to be separating LIBS, and MAINLIBS for DSOs and the main zsh binary - right? It sounds to me from the discussion though that we almost need a separate $LIBS for every single module though which is a bit worrying. Is the initial thing which has sparked this off that the termcap/terminfo modules are the first modules which are using libraries which the main zsh never previously loaded? Could LIBS maybe remain just the common libraries and we then add the extra libraries for the termcap module only? Also, a while back when you implemented ${(k)terminfo} you asked if you should also do this for termcap. Sorry if this is already done but if not, I'd just like to add my vote in favour, even if you need to constant table of termcap codes - it'd be useful. Oliver