From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,39bde956b245c191
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.0.170 with SMTP id 10mr22974495pbf.2.1323098540794;
        Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:22:20 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni72387pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:22:19 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How to nicely distribute a simple Ada library?
References: <slrnjdmlq0.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <361x89sndsg9$.16ruxrwxud090$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.v50l7yalule2fv@douda-yannick> <pp4kgx5l3a9o$.5e4ysumkwde2.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.v50sd4xgule2fv@douda-yannick>
In-Reply-To: <op.v50sd4xgule2fv@douda-yannick>
Message-ID: <4edce1ab$0$6552$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Dec 2011 16:22:19 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1410e100.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=2[;9^JW7HefEB;5>eE0T7m4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkTUUbab]\[Clnc\616M64>jLh>_cHTX3jmd;473=h_=Bg
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19351
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2011-12-05T16:22:19+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 05.12.11 15:11, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:31:16 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>>> Not even in a platform dependent body ?
>>
>> Yes
> Why ?

Not even with a single "compiler", because there is no such
thing as a single compiler (or rather, linker).

Another reason is obfuscation. Where do you find the build
settings for this software?  Somewhere in the sources.

Change the build settings, change the sources. This means I
might find myself violating licensing terms.

Change the platform from M bits to N bits, N > M, and
see how everything at least compiles just fine. Then, learn
that there is -lfooM somewhere...

A possible exception could be when a body's algorithms semantically
depend on the linker options.  I can't think of a meaningful
example.

Some software I have seen included -lsomething only because
this was useful on the development platform at some point,
not because the software needed "something".

Perhaps options in sources is a habit imported from some
dialect of Pascal?