Re: [Chicken-users] is C_NO_PIC_NO_DLL necessary?

[felix winkelmann]

Yes, it's wrong indeed.


cheers,
felix


On 2/13/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
>  felix winkelmann wrote:
>  On 2/13/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> 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
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>
>
>