[Distutils] CCompiler interfaces
Sun Sep 17 20:22:05 2000
On 12 September 2000, Rene Liebscher said:
> Output filenames:
> * create_static_lib needs a library name, which
> becomes intern a real file name.
> (Is anyone using this method?)
Yes, this is used by the "build_clib" command. It's important
> * link_shared_library is similar to
Right, because shared libraries and static libraries are (at least
conceptually) similar. In implementation terms -- how they're created,
what you can do with them, how they're formatted -- they are indeed
quite different, as you observed later.
> * link_shared_object needs a real file name.
> * link_executable wants the basename of its
> output file.
'link_shared_object()' is the odd man out here: the other three all want
an "abstract" name -- library or executable name -- rather than a
concrete filename. 'link_shared_object()' was mainly conceived as a
back-door to let you generate whatever filename you please, if the
high-level interface ('link_shared_library()') doesn't cut it.
> We have two methods shared_object_filename()
> and library_filename() (for static and shared
> libraries). Wouldn't it be better to add
> a method executable_filename() and use for
> all of the linker methods the real filename
> as parameter?
'shared_object_filename()' is a relic -- I just checked, and it's only
defined by CCompiler, and not used anywhere. Fine to delete it.
I agree about 'executable_filename()' -- good idea to add this for
> For link_executable() we also need a parameter
> export_symbols. (An executable could export
> symbols to be able to be extended by plug-ins.)
OK, I didn't know that. Sounds like a reasonable change.
> The best way would to merge these three methods
> into one new method and remove the old ones.
> (Or let the old ones call the new and give a warning
> the user should use the new method.)
Agreed. The backwards compatibility is a pain because these methods
take so many parameters, but I think the 'link_this()' and 'link_that()'
interface is nice to support. I wouldn't bother with a warning, though.
> This new method would have following parameters:
> (It is better to see a shared libray as an half-build
> executable than to compare it with static libraries.)
> def link (self,
> target would be one of 'shared_object',
> 'shared_library' or 'executable'.
Then it should be called 'target_desc' -- when I see "target", I think
> The compiler classes would then be much simpler
> and smaller.
Good -- they need it.
> This saves about 70 lines of redundant code.
> For BCPPCompiler and MSVCCompiler it is similar.
> Are there any objections?
> If not, I would send Greg a patch for it.
OK -- I'll take a look at the patch.
> > Release 0.9 (29 June, 2000):
> > ----------------------------
> > * added the ability to compile and link in resource files with
> > Visual C++ on Windows (Thomas Heller)
> However, I can't find the place where it is done. Maybe it wasn't
> checked in ?
I think this was a change to msvccompiler.py. Can't remember exactly
what the change was -- was there anything in the CVS log?