From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm@one-point.com>
Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>,
Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>,
Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com>,
Nic Ferrier <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk>,
java@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Get rid of libtool? [was Re: Makefile problems]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020225164315.A27838@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10202250019250.26667-100000@mars.deadcafe.org>; from jsturm@one-point.com on Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:45:11AM -0500
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:45:11AM -0500, Jeff Sturm wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > There are a lot of small details that, when
> > added up, may turn into enough of a hassle that a lot of libtool's
> > built-in intelligence ends up having to be duplicated, and poorly.
>
> Isn't that happening already for libgcc_s?
No.
The rules for building libgcc_s are quite simple, and are completely
contained within one single makefile rule, which is brought in from
some target-specific makefile fragment.
The problems we're having with libgcc_s are philosophical wrt how it
should be partitioned and used. There are zero problems with the
actual construction of the library.
r~
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-26 0:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <3C78B3B6.5000303@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>
[not found] ` <87it8mbse7.fsf@tf1.tapsellferrier.co.uk>
2002-02-24 16:21 ` Bryce McKinlay
2002-02-24 19:16 ` Brian Jones
2002-02-24 19:35 ` Phil Edwards
2002-02-24 19:45 ` Alexandre Oliva
2002-02-24 19:59 ` Bryce McKinlay
2002-02-24 21:22 ` Alexandre Oliva
2002-02-24 22:05 ` Jeff Sturm
2002-02-24 22:17 ` Phil Edwards
2002-02-24 22:24 ` Alexandre Oliva
2002-02-24 23:20 ` Phil Edwards
2002-02-25 5:36 ` Alexandre Oliva
2002-02-25 9:10 ` Alexandre Oliva
2002-02-26 18:41 ` Jeff Sturm
2002-02-26 18:47 ` Richard Henderson
[not found] ` <3C7C4E67.6050001@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>
2002-02-27 2:41 ` Richard Henderson
2002-02-27 17:55 ` Alexandre Oliva
2002-02-25 16:56 ` Richard Henderson [this message]
2002-02-25 17:00 ` Richard Henderson
2002-02-27 18:06 ` Alexandre Oliva
2002-02-27 20:17 ` Albert Chin
2002-02-28 0:02 ` Marc Espie
2002-02-28 0:49 ` Alexandre Oliva
2002-02-28 17:35 ` Phil Edwards
2002-07-03 15:41 Nathanael Nerode
2002-12-28 5:08 ` Alexandre Oliva
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020225164315.A27838@redhat.com \
--to=rth@redhat.com \
--cc=aoliva@redhat.com \
--cc=bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=java@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jsturm@one-point.com \
--cc=nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk \
--cc=phil@jaj.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).