This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
- To: aoliva at redhat dot com (Alexandre Oliva)
- Subject: Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
- From: Brad Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:24:28 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: lucier at math dot purdue dot edu (Brad Lucier), jbuck at synopsys dot COM, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr
>
> On Feb 16, 2001, Brad Lucier <lucier@math.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> >> From aoliva@redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:16:37 2001
> >> On Feb 16, 2001, Brad Lucier <lucier@math.purdue.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Is the following suggestion of Theodore Papadopoulo reasonable?
> >>
> >> It has been suggested before. I myself tried it once. At that time,
> >> it was rejected.
>
> > I don't want it done by default, I want it to be a configure option.
>
> Sounds good to me. The next exercise is to figure out what options
> have to be passed on each architecture. Unfortunately, on some
> architectures, it's *very* hard to do it.
OK, you think it's a good idea, and it's hard.
I thought the Open Source (or Free Software) philosophy was "Release
early, release often" and "Get a partial solution out there, we can
perfect it later."
If you do it for the platforms you'd like it on, then perhaps others
could do it for other platforms.
Brad