This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: forget *documenting* libiberty -- how about *installing* it?
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com>
- Subject: Re: forget *documenting* libiberty -- how about *installing* it?
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 20:41:23 -0700
- cc: pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com (Phil Edwards), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at redhat dot com
In message <200101040126.RAA03605@racerx.synopsys.com>you write:
> In the past, when things like this were discussed the issue always came up
> that, currently, binutils and gdb both ship a libiberty and they are
> usually out of phase with each other. So libiberty doesn't really have
> a version number and it's a problem if you use an installed copy because
> depending on the order in which gdb, binutils and gcc are installed you
> might get a different one. Any news on that front? Or is it still the
> same?
Basically still the same. Though I don't recall it being a major
problem for libiberty. It *is* a major problem for bfd which continues
to have significant interface changes.
jeff