[patch] releases.html

Tom Tromey tromey@redhat.com
Wed Feb 14 12:05:00 GMT 2001


>>>>> "Zack" == Zack Weinberg <zackw@stanford.edu> writes:

Zack> Hm, I could have explained myself better.  I'm aware of the
Zack> total complexity of metaconfig.  However, it seems to me that
Zack> the complexity of its dynamic library/module support is far
Zack> smaller than the complexity of libtool, for roughly equivalent
Zack> functionality.  There is no heavyweight compiler wrapper script,
Zack> only a straightforward set of additional Makefile variables
Zack> (LDDLFLAGS etc.)

One problem is historical.  My recollection is that Gord specifically
designed libtool to be independent of autoconf.  So instead of doing
the "obvious" thing (write some autoconf macros and then rely on the
Makefile to get things right), instead he built all the configury
stuff into libtool itself.

I imagine the decision to support building both shared and static
libraries at once probably also increased the size of libtool quite a
bit.

Tom



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list