[PATCH libgloss]Using spec files to support two version of newlib library in one tool-chain release
Wed Aug 13 05:45:00 GMT 2014
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:newlib-
> email@example.com] On Behalf Of Steve Ellcey
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:04 AM
> To: Craig Howland
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH libgloss]Using spec files to support two version of
> library in one tool-chain release
> On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 11:27 -0400, Craig Howland wrote:
> > One thought on word choice for consideration: the new library files
> > are named with an "_s" suffix, yet the option and file names use
> > "nano", which has no letters in common with the _s. Presumably the "s"
> comes from small or size.
> > Might it be better to use "small" or "size" instead of "nano"? Or
> > something else that more readily associates? (Not a big thing, but
> > would become more important were another option to be added later.)
> > Craig
> I would rather use the _n prefix to match nano rather then _s to match
> (or size) because _s means 'shared' to me. The GCC build uses foo.o for
> pic objects and foo_s.o for pic objects when building some of its
> libgcc. I think using _n would result in less confusion.
Thank both of you for the suggestion. I agree _s isn't appropriate here,
and searched and replaced it with _n in the attached patch. If anyone
thinks _n isn't clear enough I suggest we just use _nano here, since the
word is used elsewhere in both file name and configuration option name.
Is it OK for you guys?
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
More information about the Newlib