httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject conditional DSO support? (was: Re: alpha4)
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:22:32 GMT
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000 wrote:
> > I still don't see what point of disabling DSO support is. Why not just
> > always include it if it's supported on the build platform? That would make
> > the problem & complexity go away.
> Because people don't like that.  Turning on DSO support requires that we
> add -ldl to the LIBS variable for ALL builds.  This has been vetoed
> already.

I think you may have misunderstood my issue.

-ldl is appropriate for DSO support on *SOME* platforms. APR was including
it unconditionally on ALL platforms, which is incorrect.

APR should just include DSO support, all the time, presuming it is
available on the target platform. This whole "optional this or that"
introduces complexity, uncertainty, and all for little benefit.

Seriously... WHY should we drop out the DSO support when it is available?

> > The only part of APR I can see a point in disabling is threads because
> > thread safeness can incur an expense (mutex locks etc). It's fairly common
> > for run time libraries to come in single & multi threaded versions.
> We want to be able to turn things on and off in APR because of the size of
> the APR binary.

If APR is built as a .so, then this is a pretty moot issue. If APR is
built as a plain .a, then the linker will only pull in necessary pieces.

Case in point: look at the thread this spawned. All kinds of discussion
about how to do partial building, separate or combined .a files, mother
.DLLs or a bunch of little ones, configuration complexities, etc.

Let's simplify!


Greg Stein,

View raw message