This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] shared/dylib'ed libgcc for darwin try #2
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Tobler <toa at pop dot agri dot ch>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, Geoffrey Keating <gkeating at apple dot com>, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Date: 17 Jun 2003 11:37:41 -0300
- Subject: Re: [RFC] shared/dylib'ed libgcc for darwin try #2
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <3EEEDF93.2050609@pop.agri.ch>
On Jun 17, 2003, Andreas Tobler <toa@pop.agri.ch> wrote:
> Hello,
> another try.
> Attached a patch which introduces shared/dylib'ed libgcc and friends
> for cvs-head darwin.
> It is a RFC since I'd like (would really appreciate if I get any
> comments) to hear comments on what could be done better etc.
One thing that jumps out is the unconditional use of
`-multiply_defined suppress' in the testsuite configuration files.
This should be reworked so as to use this flag on Darwin alone, or,
even better, to make it completely unnecessary.
FWIW, the changes to the shared library machinery look reasonable, and
so do the libtool changes, assuming they're just merges from libtool
CVS mainline. Otherwise, please make sure any changes you're
introducing make it to libtool CVS before they make it to GCC, such
that, when we upgrade to a newer release of libtool, we don't regress.
> While doing the tests I encountered only some minor regressions on
> c,c++
By regressions, do you mean failures that were introduced by your
patch, or maybe that just happened to be there before? The latter is
not all that important, but the former should be clearly justified.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer