libiberty packaging troubles

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 10:59:04PM +0000, John Levon 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.

> 2) the source is large, and would more than double the size of our
> source releases

Yeah, well.

> 3) neither the gcc or binutils version of libiberty are
> self-encapsulated. They rely on a number of headers outside of libiberty
> directory.

All of which should be in the top-level 'include' directory.  There's
no harm in just including the entire directory.

> 4) I could not find an answer as to which package had the master source
> of libiberty

GCC.  The copy in Binutils' CVS is generally updated within an hour,
though.

> Does anybody have suggestions ? Is there a self-contained libiberty
> somewhere ?

Not yet.  I believe this is on someone's todo list...

> My other option is to investigate Carlo Wood's demangler in libcwd,
> and see if I can get both demanglers to work automatically (are there
> ambiguous cases between the two ABIs ? Why doesn't gcc add a hint in
> the binary which mangling scheme was used :/)

There are no ambiguities.  All v3 manglings start with _Z, and all v2
manglings (mostly...) start with the name of the function being
mangled.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer