This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: libiberty packaging troubles
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 06:24:45PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > 1) We need libbfd as well, there is a risk associated with using a newer
> > libiberty in our source against an older system libbfd
>
> Libbfd is the same as libiberty in this context. If you want to use
> libbfd, you need to include it.
ouch.
is there any particular reason this linking isn't allowed ? Does nobody
else think it's a problem that every single app that uses this stuff has
to replicate it ?
> > 2) the source is large, and would more than double the size of our
> > source releases
>
> Yeah, well.
with bfd as well, it's more like 10x the size.
> All of which should be in the top-level 'include' directory. There's
> no harm in just including the entire directory.
ok, I noticed the gcc include/ directory has a lot less in it.
> GCC. The copy in Binutils' CVS is generally updated within an hour,
thanks
> > Does anybody have suggestions ? Is there a self-contained libiberty
> > somewhere ?
>
> Not yet. I believe this is on someone's todo list...
well that's a minor problem now compared to libbfd.
> There are no ambiguities. All v3 manglings start with _Z, and all v2
> manglings (mostly...) start with the name of the function being
> mangled.
thanks.
I think the only sensible thing I can do is punt the issue and continue
on the "non-approved" track. I don't know what including another 10Mb of
source myself will help with !
I should probably let you get back to releasing 2.12 ...
regards
john
--
I am a complete moron for forgetting about endianness. May I be
forever marked as such.