Re: libiberty should be a shared library when cc1 has plugin enabled.

[Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>]

* Daniel Jacobowitz wrote on Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 03:43:18PM CEST:
> While Ralf's point about static data is valid, the functions likely to
> be in libiberty on any platform supporting plugins should not suffer
> from this problem.

Solaris 9 and IRIX 6.5 support dlopen; gnulib documents them as missing
setenv, and of course they are tertiary platforms only.  However, I
wouldn't be surprised if plugins such as melt used setenv, esp. if they
spawn other processes, e.g., to compile code.

> If you're concerned about it, then build a subset.  I've considered a
> separation of libiberty into replacements and utilities, anyway.

Why would that help in this case?  Even if the static data issue
concerns one set of these functions only now (does it?), it won't
prevent anyone from adding problems to the other set tomorrow, unless
you also introduce a policy that libiberty functions be safe against
multiple entities.

Cheers,
Ralf