libiberty as a parameter

Jeffrey A Law law@hurl.cygnus.com
Sun Feb 28 18:15:00 GMT 1999


  In message <19990131221052.60957@liafa1.liafa.jussieu.fr>you write:
  > Assuming we want at some point to actually have a dynamic libiberty
  > available, heck, that's one major/minor version numbers are for.
Agreed.  If we want dynamic libiberty, then we really need version #s. 
Actually, I thought there was some support for dynamic libiberty.  Or maybe
that was a PIC libiberty sucked into a dynamic libbfd/libopcodes.  Hard to
remember now.


  > The other possibility
  > would be to make the same arrangements Fortran folks already have, and to
  > include a version number in libiberty, so that a small configure test can
  > check whether the pre-existing libiberty is enough, or not...
Ick.  I don't see the real benefit -- and it just adds more hair to the
configure/make scheme.

We want to move towards a simpler configure/make scheme.  I mean *much*
simpler.  The state of the configure/make world right now is teetering on
the edge of unmaintainability due to its complexity.

jeff



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list