Re: flat, no all-load for darwin

[Benjamin Reed]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:54:14 +0900, Peter O'Gorman <address@hidden> wrote:

> 2) If I apply the -flat_namespace thing Ben Reed will be very angry with me
> as he'll no longer be able to build KDE. While you can add
> Wl,-flat_namespace to your LDFLAGS currently, and glibtool will pass it
> through and honour it, if you have specified -flat_namespace in the
> allow_undefined_flag, but you really want twolevel_namespace, it is
> impossible to add it to the flags:
> ld: can't specify both -twolevel_namespace and -flatname_space
> (note the flag name in the linker error, please file a bug at Apple for me :).
> 
> If you can explain why you need the flat_namespace stuff in the
> allow_undefined_flag maybe we can figure something out. I'll have to ask Ben
>   about KDE.

Why is -flat_namespace "usually what you want" anyways?  I was under
the impression that twolevel libraries are always preferable because
dyld can load them faster (even without prebinding, since 10.3.4) and
symbol resolution is safer.

The only time -flat_namespace should be necessary, I would think, is
when building modules without specifying a -bundle_loader, or if
people put -no-undefined in their libtool project without knowing what
it actually means.  :)