This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files


On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 15:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 25 September 2006 14:47, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Not to say you're wrong, but this is the first I've heard
> > that linux-gnu implies glibc.  Is there someplace where this
> > is written?
> 
> common practice ? :)

Well... not so common that I've heard of it...

> in the uClibc world we use $arch-$vendor-linux-uclibc to keep things clean and 
> sep from the host glibc toolchain $arch-$vendor-linux-gnu ... when we 
> proposed adding support for *-linux-uclibc and *-linux-newlib and 
> *-linux-dietlibc to binutils, the cleaner solution was to simply accept 
> *-linux-* in configure files

That may be sound -- but uClibc is not the world.  Who else is doing 
something similar?


> upstream libtool changed their files a while ago to accept 'linux*)' rather 
> than 'linux-gnu*)' ... so my patch isnt treading into new territory, it's 
> backporting updates from upstream libtool

Cool -- but libtool, while widely used, is not the world either.
The world, in this context, is {fsf/gnu} or maybe {fsf/gnu/linux},
of which libtool is certainly a part -- but I'm not sure if we 
traditionally 'backport' changes from libtool into binutils without
question.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]