This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: patch - add GNU/kFreeBSD support into shlibpath.m4
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Petr Salinger <Petr dot Salinger at t-systems dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx dot be>, Aurelien Jarno <aurel32 at debian dot org>, libtool-patches at gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:53:02 +0200
- Subject: Re: patch - add GNU/kFreeBSD support into shlibpath.m4
- References: <446B10D3.3020203@pop.agri.ch> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0605171425000.28012-100000@enigma.t-systems.cz> <17515.10565.543618.665265@dell.pink> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0605181008250.899@mina.t-systems.cz> <m37j4cuuk0.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
Hello Tom, Petr,
* Tom Tromey wrote on Wed, May 24, 2006 at 02:37:35AM CEST:
> >>>>> "Petr" == Petr Salinger <Petr.Salinger@t-systems.cz> writes:
>
> Petr> would be possible to include GNU/kFreeBSD support into shlibpath.m4.
> Petr> This change together with slightly modified boehm-gc gives reasonable
> Petr> results, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2006-05/msg00093.html.
>
> We try to avoid local modifications to files like this.
> It came from libtool, as I recall. Could you see if the problem is
> fixed upstream? If so, we could import and "upstream-looking" patch.
> If not, the patch should probably go there first.
I think you're looking for this thread:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2006-03/msg00005.html
Somebody needs to convince the authors of the patches (Cc:ed) to assign
or disclaim copyright, or rewrite the patches, or convince me (or
another Libtool maintainer, FWIW) that the changes are trivial enough
not to warrant a copyright assignment.
(And no, changing
| - dynamic_linker='GNU/Linux ld.so'
| + dynamic_linker='GNU ld.so'
for GNU/Linux is not ok for Libtool, as suggested in Petr's patch.)
Cheers,
Ralf