Re: [ft-devel] FreeType Amalgamation

[mpsuzuki]

I have no objection to the statement "compiling single C
source to single object is much easier than compiling much
single file is easier than compiling multiple C sources
to single library", and I have to accept that many newbies
had a difficulty to understand the process how to build
libfreetype.  Also using single object file would be much
easier to use FreeType2 for a statically linked application
or systems.

However, the source structure of FreeType2 is related with
the modularization of each features and binary compatibilities,
so the official support of the concatenated C source can be
slightly difficult (sorry!).

BTW, during the overhaul of PIC mode building, I found
there are several macros that would not work if all sources
are concatenated.  Werner, should we care the inter-module
namespace separation of cpp macros?  At present, we care
only the intra-module namespace separation.  The easiest way
would be the insertion of "#undef" to unsafe macros...

Regards,
mpsuzuki

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:05:55 -0800
"Tom Bishop, Wenlin Institute" <address@hidden> wrote:

>
>On Jan 19, 2012, at 8:32 AM, Vinnie wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in building an "amalgamated" version of FreeType.
>
>I would love to be able to use that. Currently I don't build FreeType
>as a library, I add twenty-five FreeType C files directly to the
>project or makefile in which they are used. (For cross-platform
>development, I find this is easier than building libraries.) It is
>tedious since they are in a bunch of different folders that also
>contain other C files that should NOT be added. A single C file would
>be much more convenient.
>
>Tom
>
>文林 Wenlin Institute, Inc.        Software for Learning Chinese
>E-mail: address@hidden     Web: http://www.wenlin.com
>Telephone: 1-877-4-WENLIN (1-877-493-6546)
>___
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Freetype-devel mailing list
>address@hidden
>https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel