on OSX, the -fstatic flag should be ignored (or not static link crt0 )

[cartazio]

while having a go at building pandoc with -fstatic -fembed_data_files
i realized that the former isn't setup correctly / may never work on osx?

Linking dist/build/pandoc/pandoc ...
ld: library not found for -lcrt0.o
clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
`clang' failed in phase `Linker'. (Exit code: 1)
cabal: Failed to build exe:pandoc from pandoc-2.11.0.4. See the build log
above for details.

it seems like theres a bug / design flaw in -fstatic is done

edit: looking at the .cabal file

  if flag(static)
    ld-options:     -static

unconditional -static is definitely wrong

[jgm]

Yes, I don't think fully static linking is possible on macOS.

But making the effect of static flag conditional seems wrong also; we don't want people thinking that they succeeded in doing a static build when the flag is silently ignored.

[cartazio]

Very true! You could have that flag also set some cpp flag if on osx and have a cpp stanza somewhere that has Ifdef cabal flag static enabled && OS X #error “unconditional static linking of everything on OS X is not currently supported, reconfigure your cabal build without -fstatic flag selected” What do you think ?

…

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:13 AM John MacFarlane ***@***.***> wrote: Yes, I don't think fully static linking is possible on macOS. But making the effect of static flag conditional seems wrong also; we don't want people thinking that they succeeded in doing a static build when the flag is silently ignored. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6771 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAABBQWWBAME6Q7JB3OSZXDSMTZQJANCNFSM4S53PLFQ> .

[jgm]

What about setting Buildable to False if static is selected on macOS?
That would be a CPP-less solution, though perhaps less informative.

[cartazio]

anything is definitely better than what it currently does, honestly whatever you feel happiest with, i do think some sort of feedback is better than flags silently being accepted which have never worked before

[jgm]

I've used the buildable: False approach.
But now that I look at it, is there a point to having the 'static' flag any more? All it does is set

    ld-options:     -static

But if I'm not mistaken, that can be done now by using the option --enable-executable-static with cabal (or executable-static: true in project file). If not, it's always possible to set the linker options on the command line. (With stack, I think that's the only way.) Currently to make our static build we us

cabal v2-configure --enable-tests -f-export-dynamic -fstatic -fembed_data_files --enable-executable-static --ghc-options '-optc-Os -optl=-pthread -split-sections' pandoc

Not sure that's all necessary; I think -fstatic is redundant with --enable-executable-static, and even if it wasn't, we could just add another -optl=-static to the list.

Will reopen in case anyone wants to comment.

[cartazio]

Ld options static does soemthing very different from building a static Haskell executable. So if cabal static executable does what you want ... the ld flag certainly doesn’t ... I think.

…

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 5:48 PM John MacFarlane ***@***.***> wrote: I've used the buildable: False approach. But now that I look at it, is there a point to having the 'static' flag any more? All it does is set ld-options: -static But if I'm not mistaken, that can be done now by using the option --enable-executable-static with cabal (or executable-static: true in project file). If not, it's always possible to set the linker options on the command line. (With stack, I think that's the only way.) Currently to make our static build we us cabal v2-configure --enable-tests -f-export-dynamic -fstatic -fembed_data_files --enable-executable-static --ghc-options '-optc-Os -optl=-pthread -split-sections' pandoc Not sure that's all necessary; I think -fstatic is redundant with --enable-executable-static, and even if it wasn't, we could just add another -optl=-static to the list. Will reopen in case anyone wants to comment. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6771 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAABBQQM6V55NLPK3QB7MATSQRMLRANCNFSM4S53PLFQ> .

[jgm]

Really? The docs for --enable-executable-static say:
"Build fully static executables. This links all dependent libraries into executables statically, including libc. "

[cartazio]

woops, i stand corrected! (looked at the cabal docs) also i'm not sure how that'd work on some platforms, but definitely looks to be a better fix than the current stuff :)

…

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 6:05 PM John MacFarlane ***@***.***> wrote: Really? The docs for --enable-executable-static say: "Build fully static executables. This links all dependent libraries into executables statically, including libc. " — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6771 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAABBQQRKUBHBMBZBEIE7DDSQROLFANCNFSM4S53PLFQ> .

[jgm]

I think I'll just remove the static flag.
It's more likely to lead people astray than to help.