FFI Definition

[Malcolm Wallace]

Simon PJ writes:
> I thought we agreed to remove the specification of libraries from the
> FFI, and leave it to some compiler-dependent mechanism.  As Sven points
> out, there are going to be times when you really don't want a library at
> all, or in any case not one with the same name as the header file, and
> there will be cases where you want several libraries in some
> system-dependent order that shouldn't be placed in the source code.

I'm certain that at least one person (me) disagreed with removing any
library specs from the FFI.  I tend to the view that if the compiler
needs to know about something (and can't work it out for itself) the
information should be in the source code.  Putting it in a Makefile
or some other auxiliary structure (package configuration?) is not
really clean enough for me.  I don't want to have to write three
different Makefiles, one for each possible compiler I could use.
Please let's aim for portability.

Having said that, it is true that the FFI may not be the best place
for a specification of link libraries or whatever.  Maybe we should
agree on some pragmas for this sort of information?  In any case,
I'd like to have a compiler-independent standard, whether or not it
is part of the FFI.

Regards,
    Malcolm