From: Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>
To: Nic Ferrier <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk>
Cc: java@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Get rid of libtool? [was Re: Makefile problems]
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:21:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C797FAA.9070305@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87it8mbse7.fsf@tf1.tapsellferrier.co.uk>
Nic Ferrier wrote:
>I'm sorry about that. It seems to the fault of my patch.
>
>I did do a full test (configure, build and install) of the patch on a
>fresh check out (with the diff applied). I'm not sure why that didn't
>catch the problem.
>
It is a dependency problem - ie if you touch a source file it will cause
everything to be rebuilt rather than just the other files which depend
on what you changed.
I must admit that, after a frustrating afternoon yesterday trying to
figure out silly libjava build problems when I really wanted to do
productive gcj hacking, I am sympathetic to RTH's recent suggestion that
we get rid of libtool (and automake?) and instead make sure that "gcc
-shared" knows how to build a shared library on all the platforms that
we care about.
I am convinced that this would result in a much more maintainable,
transparent, and above all _fast_ build system, in addition to making it
easier to implement libjava-specific requirements like package-at-a-time
compilation.
So, is there anything important that we would lose from such a change?
Is there anything that libtool can do that GCC will never be able to do?
What platforms do we care about that GCC currently cant build a shared
library on (windows perhaps?).
regards
Bryce.
next parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-25 0:05 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 [this message]
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
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=3C797FAA.9070305@waitaki.otago.ac.nz \
--to=bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=java@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk \
/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).