[PATCH] Avoid invoking ranlib on libbackend.a

[Manuel López-Ibáñez]

On 17/07/16 15:43, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 9:15 AM, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You repeatedly are making bad assumptions and assertions without
>> having studied much about GCC. You assume that GNU ar is the only
>> archiver in use. You propose removing libbackend.a without having
>> investigated when it was introduced and why.
>>
>> Your patches would be a lot more compelling if you invested the time
>> to learn some context.
>
> The only patch I officially proposed is the one elides the invocation
> of ranlib if the current ar is GNU ar (thanks to those who kindly
> mentioned that other ar's are supported).  Do you have any comments
> about this patch?
>
> And you're right.  I am sorry for suggesting ways to improve rebuild
> times without first uncovering the undocumented intricacies of the
> build system.  Shame on me!

"Look at the bright side. Technical discussions sometimes appear harsh and dry 
to newcomers. Moreover, negative opinions are more vocal than positive ones. 
Thus, something that most people think is a good idea or they are indifferent 
may only get negative feedback from a few. Take this into account when judging 
how other people evaluate your ideas."
Point 3 https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Community

(I will extend the above with a few sentences about how tone is lost in email 
and one should always interpret criticism in the most friendly manner. Perhaps 
also extract anything useful from: 
http://producingoss.com/en/communications.html#writing-tone)

For what is worth, I commend your attempts at improving build times and I don't 
think you need to be sorry. On the other hand, it is to be expected that people 
may not welcome with open arms suggestions that may break GCC for them.

You are certainly right that there is a lot of undocumented/cargo-cult stuff in 
GCC. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that once the "newbie" becomes an 
"expert", the desire to document evaporates (I'm guilty also of this).

Why not get your "elide ranlib if possible" patch in first? Then, start a 
different discussion about whether libbackend.a is really necessary. I would 
actually prefer if GCC built some parts as libraries that could be re-used by 
other free-software projects rather than as a work-around:

https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/rearch
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ModularGCC#Middle-end_modules

Happy hacking,

	Manuel.