This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Building collect2 for C?

From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
Cc: eric at ecentral dot com, ian at wasabisystems dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:03:16 -0800
Subject: Re: Building collect2 for C?
References: <40569DF1.1919.21AF79@localhost> <4056CA1A.7351.4AF6541@localhost><200403161744.i2GHie0r020807@greed.delorie.com>

DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:

>> I can't tell from that discussion whether it's an objection based on
>> libiberty itself, or an objection based on that the proposed patch
>> doesn't work for DJGPP.
>
> It was based on libiberty.  DJGPP was just a sample of why.  IIRC, the
> patch created an API that wasn't platform-independent, defeating the
> purpose of putting it in libiberty in the first place.

It was only platform-dependent because you insist on using an
obsolete platform.  I am tempted to put DJGPP and MPW on the
obsoletions list for 3.5 just to eliminate this nonsense objection.

Ian's concerns are much more apt.

zw

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Building collect2 for C?
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: Building collect2 for C?
  - From: Joe Buck

References:
- Building collect2 for C?
  - From: E. Weddington
- Re: Building collect2 for C?
  - From: E. Weddington
- Re: Building collect2 for C?
  - From: DJ Delorie

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