Re: Glib

[Ross McFarland <rwmcfa1 neces com>]

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 19:23, Bob Rossi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am the author of an open source project called CGDB. It is a curses
> based interface to the GDB. CGDB is written in C. I have been searching
> the Internet for a good C library that contains useful abstract data
> types.
> 
> Glib is the closest thing I could find. However, it seems that Glib
> contains a lot more than what I need. g_threads, ...

i'm pretty sure you can get glib without gthreads, there are two
different pkg-config files for them which include different libs:

$ pkg-config --libs glib-2.0
-lglib-2.0  
$ pkg-config --libs gthread-2.0
-pthread -lgthread-2.0 -lglib-2.0  

gobject and gmodule are even in a seperate pc files.

$ pkg-config --libs gobject-2.0
-lgobject-2.0 -lglib-2.0 
$ pkg-config --libs gmodule
-rdynamic -lgmodule -ldl -lglib  

the builds of glib, gobject, gthread, gmodule are all tied together as
glib, but from the looks of it your app can link with any part(s) you
want/need.

if you want to know where the distinctions are drawn have a look at a
glib tarball. each of the directories glib, gobject, gthread, gmodule
will have in them the stuff that's in each of the corresponding shared
libs. 

> It would be nice if Glib could be built into a small C library than only
> had ADT's in it. This way, many small projects could take advantage of
> these data types, without loosing portability. The goal of CGDB is to
> port anywhere that GDB ports.

glib itself builds pretty quick and altogether wouldn't take much over a
meg once installed on a system. i don't think they're be much reason to
get it to build only pieces and parts since you can link against only
the pieces you need. on top of that more systems than not are already
going to have the full blown glib on them. 

-rm