Re: Ping: build testing broken for many multilib targets

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > > > > Mark Mitchell writes:
>
>
> Mark> I think that the "flat" layout is just wrong.  The right layout is the 
> Mark> same as the one used in the installed tree (modulo 
> Mark> MULTILIB_{OS,}DIRNAMES, I guess).  That's the right thing, for lots of 
> Mark> reasons -- not least because there's no point in being different from 
> Mark> the installed tree, unless there's a compelling reason.  That means that 
> Mark> I think that the old layout's "libgcc_s_<multilib>.so" links are bogus.
>
> Mark> I've heard people suggest that these links were a win in that it made it 
> Mark> possible to avoid putting as many directories in LD_LIBRARY_PATH at 
> Mark> run-out-of-builddir time, but I think that's specious; eliminating the 
> Mark> differences between build and installed trees is more important.
>
> 	The flat model was a conscious decision when libgcc_s_<multilib>
> was implemented.  I think that we at least should ask the designer,
> Richard Henderson, before unilaterally changing it.

Well, Richard, what say you?

I think that it's bizarre to segregate all of our other libraries into 
appropriate multilib directories, including static libgcc, but not the 
shared libgcc.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304