[PATCH libgloss]Using spec files to support two version of newlib library in one tool-chain release

[Jeff Johnston]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Corinna Vinschen" <vinschen@redhat.com>
> To: newlib@sourceware.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:58:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH libgloss]Using spec files to support two version of newlib library in one tool-chain release
> 
> On Aug 13 13:44, Bin Cheng wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: newlib-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:newlib-
> > > owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Steve Ellcey
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:04 AM
> > > To: Craig Howland
> > > Cc: newlib@sourceware.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH libgloss]Using spec files to support two version of
> > newlib
> > > 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
> > small
> > > (or size) because _s means 'shared' to me.  The GCC build uses foo.o for
> > non-
> > > pic objects and foo_s.o for pic objects when building some of its
> > libraries like
> > > libgcc.  I think using _n would result in less confusion.
> > > 
> > Hi,
> > 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?
> 
> The patch looks good, but I think I'd prefer _nano as suffix.  While _s
> for "shared" is an established suffix, _n for a space optimized version
> isn't.  _nano would give a rather nice hint and would also give credit
> to the actual code base.
> 
> However, libgloss isn't exactly my domain, so I'd rather like to defer
> to Jeff here.  Perhaps the _n is ok as is.
> 

I think _nano is better since the specs file is called called nano.specs and it is a
new invention no one will be familiar with yet.  The nano version of the library
has some caveats that the end-user needs to understand so make it easier for them
to find the documentation and understand what it is.


-- Jeff J.