From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) To: manfred@s-direktnet.de Cc: law@cygnus.com, jbuck@synopsys.com, drepper@cygnus.com, egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: once we have cpplib... Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:46:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <13622.2001.164373.946740@slsvhmt> X-SW-Source: 1998-04/msg00664.html > > On Thu, 9 April 1998, 22:21:03, law@cygnus.com wrote: > > > > > In message < 199804100044.RAA11888@atrus.synopsys.com >you write: > > > > > Persnally, I don't see this as having much importance. Do we we really > > > > > support the -V option? Cygnus has always recommended against its use. > > > > > > > > I think it is essential. I have many old compilers lying around since > > > > I build and install egcs frequently. If a version is broken I must be > > > > easy to use an old version. > > > > > > Unfortunately -V switches compilers but doesn't switch libstdc++, so > > > in practice I've had to use distinct --prefix values to keep multiple > > > compilers around. > > So, I'll bring it up again, do we want to move the g++ header > > files and libraries into $libsubdir? > > > > We've discussed it at length in the past; I don't remember ever > > reaching any decision. > > I'd greatly appreciate if the stuff will be installed in $libsubdir, > because this is the way I've installed it since gcc-2.2.2 (or so). > > If we'll be going to change installation rules, where should > _G_config.h be installed? Currently it goes into > ${prefix}/${target}/include, but I think it should be installed in > ${libsubdir}/include (or ${gxx_include_dir}), right?! We have to be very careful on it. > > Anyway, if nobody else has a patch already I'll preparing one which > will provide this: > > 1. Change the default for g++ header installation from > ${prefix}/include/g++ to ${libsubdir}/include/g++ > 2. Install _G_config.h in ${libsubdir}/include. > 3. Install runtime libs (libstdc++.*) in ${libsubdir} > resp. subdirectories for multilib configurations. > > Once 3. is active, I'm afraid we'll be receiving lots of complaints > from Linux users about ld.so no longer finding libstdc++.so.2.8, > though :-( > I have warned it many months ago. -- H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)