This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Get rid of libtool? [was Re: Makefile problems]
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
- Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>, Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>, Nic Ferrier <nferrier at tapsellferrier dot co dot uk>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:43:15 -0800
- Subject: Re: Get rid of libtool? [was Re: Makefile problems]
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:45:11AM -0500, Jeff Sturm wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > There are a lot of small details that, when
> > added up, may turn into enough of a hassle that a lot of libtool's
> > built-in intelligence ends up having to be duplicated, and poorly.
> Isn't that happening already for libgcc_s?
The rules for building libgcc_s are quite simple, and are completely
contained within one single makefile rule, which is brought in from
some target-specific makefile fragment.
The problems we're having with libgcc_s are philosophical wrt how it
should be partitioned and used. There are zero problems with the
actual construction of the library.