From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 784 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2002 13:34:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 661 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 13:33:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 13:33:54 -0000 Received: from cse.cygnus.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA19954; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 05:33:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (vpnuser.sfbay.redhat.com [10.255.17.130] (may be forged)) by cse.cygnus.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id FAA22719; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 05:33:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1PDXSE03990; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:33:28 -0300 To: Phil Edwards Cc: Jeff Sturm , Bryce McKinlay , Nic Ferrier , java@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Get rid of libtool? [was Re: Makefile problems] References: <20020225010454.A27334@disaster.basement.lan> <20020225012356.A27440@disaster.basement.lan> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 05:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Phil Edwards's message of "Mon, 25 Feb 2002 01:23:56 -0500" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0805 (Gnus v5.8.5) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg01475.txt.bz2 On Feb 25, 2002, Phil Edwards wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:17:02AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Feb 25, 2002, Phil Edwards wrote: >> >> > I agree here; it seems we spend more time undoing libtool's abstraction >> > than libtool spends adding it. :-) >> >> Do you really mean this? I'd like to know of such situations, in >> which you had to undo libtool's abstraction. That's pretty sad. > Mainly I'm referring to the current situation. Aha! So, it turns out that the current situation had nothing at all to do with libtool. The whole issue was on how to pass -shared-libgcc to the link command issued by libtool, and the implications of doing so for other systems. Ok, I'll give you that libtool made this non-optimal by requiring such flag to already be present at its configuration time, which is what confused RTH. IMO, this may be addressed in future releases of libtool. But hey! if this is all you have to count in as `undoing libtool's abstraction', then it seems that you're pretty satisfied with it :-) -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer