On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 17:07 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Malcolm wrote: > > > Presumably a fix would be for the plugin's configuration phase to have a > > test that tries to build a test plugin and run it, first building with a > > C compiler, then a C++ compiler, and decides what compiler the real > > plugin should be built with accordingly. > > We've previously discussed providing some generic configure / build > support for plugins (standard autoconf macros intended for use in a > plugin's build system, for example). If in future plugins are supported > on Windows hosts (or any other hosts that lack a -rdynamic equivalent) > then such generic support will be increasingly useful because of the need > to link plugins on such hosts against a shared library or libraries that > contain most of GCC.
I suppose now is a bad time to mention that my python plugin *doesn't* use autoconf for its configure script - I didn't want to use m4 given that python is available. I'm sure I'll figure something out though.
