From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1419 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2015 08:33:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 1349 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jan 2015 08:33:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:33:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF991164D3; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 03:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 7py2Z28em-DI; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 03:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D38F1164C4; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 03:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 58CA448E89; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:33:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:33:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tristan Gingold Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: ping: [RFA] Add --with-libz-prefix option in config/zlib.m4 Message-ID: <20150121083321.GN4041@adacore.com> References: <20150107144548.GX5432@adacore.com> <20150121074758.GM4041@adacore.com> <50F92C76-7138-46CB-B620-D6001120A5D1@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50F92C76-7138-46CB-B620-D6001120A5D1@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00566.txt.bz2 > What is the rational for having --with-zlib but --with-libz-prefix > (ie zlib vs libz) ? Looks not very consistent. I agree it's unfortunate, but it is unavoidable if I want to keep the current option as it is (compatibility), and reuse AC_LIB_HAVE_LINKFLAGS (which is a fairly complex function). -- Joel