[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-mac
Subject:    Re: [KDE/Mac] Regarding building QML modules
From:       Aleix Pol <aleixpol () kde ! org>
Date:       2015-02-05 11:42:47
Message-ID: CACcA1RqwpQaqbMzHesmLAt8BmsVGncmNwp2nGyFnUoXG=wEsPQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:48 PM, René J.V. <rjvbertin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday February 04 2015 12:49:13 Aleix Pol wrote:
> 
> Hi Aleix,
> 
> > > > I received this bug report [1], I guess this should be figured out. It
> > > > suggests using add_library(MODULE) instead of add_library(SHARED) for
> > > > QML modules, as they are not meant to be linked to.
> 
> I admit I haven't looked at the bug report, but just be aware of one thing. On \
> Linux there is AFAIK no difference other than in the name between a binary made \
> with add_library(MODULE) or add_library(SHARED). On OS X with a stock cmake, there \
> is: they're created using different linker flags (-bundle vs. -dynamiclib IIRC). As \
> a result, the latter can be loaded as plugins, but the former cannot be used as \
> shared libraries, not even when you give the full path to the linker. There may be \
> other subtle differences (like whether or not unloading is possible after \
> dynamically loading one), but one can use as a general rule that there is no more \
> need to use -bundle on modern OS X versions. 
> I have no hard opinion on using a lib prefix or not. For plugins it's probably \
> easier not to add one, esp. if the prefix isn't the same on all supported \
> platforms. 
> R.

Maybe it would just be simpler if we dropped the lib* prefix over in QML....

Aleix
_______________________________________________
kde-mac@kde.org
List Information: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-mac
KDE/Mac Information: http://community.kde.org/Mac


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]