From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10320 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2004 19:01:37 -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 10285 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2004 19:01:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.198.39) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Dec 2004 19:01:29 -0000 Received: from lucon.org ([24.6.212.230]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20041217190128015008q2epe>; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:01:29 +0000 Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 29043985AA; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:01:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:01:00 -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: <20041217190128.GA2174@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> <20041217154126.GA31731@lucon.org> <200412171747.iBHHlp5E003347@greed.delorie.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200412171747.iBHHlp5E003347@greed.delorie.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:47:51PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > Just to make sure that everyone understands that we don't build > > libiberty.so for libiberty. > > Right, but some distros do. We don't support them, but they do. > > > If we build libiberty.so, we have to be very careful about the ABI. > > In general, we are, but not enough for .so's. > > > If we don't build libiberty.so, I don't see there is a need for > > libtool. My top level patch is better. > > I'd rather use something compatible with all the other libraries, so > that things are more likely to "just work". Having extra files in > toplevel just for libiberty, when everyeone else is doing something > different, is bad. > > Plus, if someone *does* want to make a libiberty.so for themselves, > this would make it a bit easier for them. Do we want to use automake on libiberty? Every other library uses it. H.J.