From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@cygnus.com>
To: jimb@cygnus.com
Cc: gdb-patches@cygnus.com, bfd@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: [gdb 19981224] Enable linking gdb against shared libbfd
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:10:00 -0000
Message-id: <199902220110.UAA03133@subrogation.cygnus.com>
References: <npr9rk1sx4.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999/msg00026.html

   From: Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>
   Date: 20 Feb 1999 19:50:31 -0500

   In a long-ago discussion on whether GDB should use a shared BFD, Ian
   Taylor said:

   > Correct: there are no current plans to use -release when building a
   > BFD shared library.
   >
   > I believe the correct solution for BFD is to rename the shared library
   > based on the BFD version number.  However, this is not currently
   > implemented.

   Why is including the BFD version in the shared library name preferable
   to using -release?

I'm not sure just what I was thinking, as the current BFD sources
actually do use -release.  See libbfd_la_LDFLAGS in bfd/Makefile.am.
I was probably confused.  Perhaps I was confusing -release and
-version-info.

I do believe that there is a current problem with BFD shared
libraries, which is that the name of the shared library does not
reflect the configured target.  The effect is that you can not
configure BFD more than once with different targets but with the same
prefix.

Ian