[lsb-discuss] GCC plugin versus lsbcc wrapper

Robert Schweikert rschweikert at novell.com
Thu May 5 07:13:19 PDT 2011



On 05/05/2011 08:48 AM, Craig.Scott at csiro.au wrote:
> It's pretty hard to follow the part of the Qt code that extracts this info. It's peppered with #ifdef's and manual symbol resolves. I can't say definitively one way or another how it derives the compiler, but I *think* it comes from recording the configure options into a configure-generated header which is then pulled in a build time. The issue here is that Qt is seeing "lsbc++" as the compiler because that's the command that is used to do the compile - the fact that this invokes g++ under the covers is essentially an implementation detail. This is where using a gcc plugin instead of the lsbcc wrapper would be making things clearer with less room for ambiguity.

Yes, but from an LSB perspective you are way outside of the target 
audience. Qt is in the LSB, such that it does not need to be compiled in 
an LSB compliant way and ISVs do not need to ship their own version.

Hopefully with the desire to have LSB less trailing, your issues around 
the "too old" problem will be addressed.

 From an ISV perspective I still see the "switch of the compiler" 
argument being made whether we use a wrapper or a plugin. In addition 
the plugin method ties us much more to gcc than we already are.

Robert

>
>
> On 05/05/2011, at 10:06 PM, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>
>> lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.linux-foundation.org wrote:
>>>  From the LSB meeting minutes of 4th May 2011:
>>>
>>> Jeff: Gcc has plugins, what if we did an LSB plugin instead of the
>>> lsbcc wrapper Robert: Basically the same problem, now we have to
>>> convince the ISV to load the plugin
>>>
>>> There is one case where the plugin approach has an advantage
>>> over using the lsbcc wrapper, albeit perhaps a special case.
>>> There are some software packages which record the compiler
>>> used to build them, then modify their behaviour based on this.
>>> Qt is one example - if the compiler used to build Qt is
>>> different from the compiler used to build a particular Qt
>>> plugin, then Qt will not load that plugin.
>>
>> hmmm, maybe there's something to look into here.
>> unless you've arranged to use something different (e.g. icc),
>> the compiler is still gcc/g++...  thus it "feels" like something
>> may be recording the compiler usage too early in the process,
>> or without enough sophisitcation...
>>
>> what is it that determines that "the compiler used to build Qt is
>> different from the compiler used to build a particular Qt plugin" ??
>
> --
> Dr Craig Scott
> Computational Software Engineering Team Leader, CSIRO (CMIS)
> Melbourne, Australia
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss

-- 
Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
Tech Lead
rschweikert at novell.com
rschweikert at ca.ibm.com
781-464-8147


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list