[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder

From: Axel Thimm
Subject: Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:31:11 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 05:46:49AM -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > may be there are some hints whether people have already tried with
> > > borland compilers.
> > Let's hope they are reading this list and will step forward to discuss it ;)

> sure - Borland C is much faster, and checks for errors that gcc doesn't
> bother to report.  But there's no point in discussing it, since people who
> use both compilers already have their minds set.

No, this is not what was discussed - this is both OT and religion. The request
was for experience in making the autoconf/automake/libtool set work with
Borland C++. No compiler comparisons, please - as you say everybody has his
mind set, and whoever doesn't should check

Please, this thread has become an philosophic/existentialist discussion on
whether autotools are better than <<your build system here>> or what compiler
are better suited. Let's just take the subject items as prerequisites and try
to solve the problem ;)

So coming back to the original problem: As I have found out in the meantime,
the command line compiler is not too different from what autotools/gmake
might expect.

-I, -L, -c, -o (for compiling only), -D, -U, -S and -O are used in a similar
as one is used in the Unix world (module pathnames, I have to check
this). Some minor glitches like -e instead of -o for creating executables may
be forgiven.

I guess that autoconf would be quite easy to implant some Borland
macros. automake and dependency tracking could be a problem, although there
are compiler switches in Borland for this, too. But maybe it's time for me to
unpack/extend my perl skills.

Where I am totally in the dark is libtool and dlls. Borland (or better said
Windows?) seems to have three modes of library creation/usage

a) ordinary static (like .a),
b) "dynamically loading a .dll": calling LoadLibrary
c) "statically linking with a .dll": like statically linking against a stub .a
   which references the dll.

Are those idioms supported by libtool? I am not quite sure whether b) or c) do
correspond to shared libs, or perhaps none.

Any comments/hints?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]