From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21022 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2004 15:41:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20982 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2004 15:41:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.202.64) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Dec 2004 15:41:30 -0000 Received: from lucon.org ([24.6.212.230]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20041217154130016003ljmde>; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:41:30 +0000 Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3DFE5985A9; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:41:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:41:00 -0000 From: "H. J. Lu" To: DJ Delorie Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix shared library build for libiberty Message-ID: <20041217154126.GA31731@lucon.org> References: <20041216230100.GA16067@lucon.org> <200412170200.iBH20euE027630@greed.delorie.com> <20041217020757.GA18875@lucon.org> <200412170210.iBH2Afpl027782@greed.delorie.com> <20041217052058.GA21455@lucon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041217052058.GA21455@lucon.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:20:58PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:10:41PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > > > I believe libiberty is the only library which uses config/mh-CPUpic > > > for building shared library. Other libraries use libtool for that, > > > which doesn't use config/mh-CPUpic. > > > > I'd rather libiberty use libtool, then. Any reason not to? Would you > > like to try changing it? > > I can give it a try. Just to make sure that everyone understands that we don't build libiberty.so for libiberty. But we do build an archive compiled with -fPIC which can be used by other libraries. Are we going to build libiberty.so or keep the same? If we build libiberty.so, we have to be very careful about the ABI. We have to treat it like libstdc++ when we change/add/remove things to libiberty. If we don't build libiberty.so, I don't see there is a need for libtool. My top level patch is better. H.J.