[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [FYI] Cleanup of linux pass_all

From: Jacob Meuser
Subject: Re: [FYI] Cleanup of linux pass_all
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:18:07 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2i

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 04:05:37PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> >>On 18 Sep 2004, at 08:28, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Or maybe adopt an old idea from NetBSD.  Instead of using names like
> >>>libfoo.a for archives built with PIC objects, call it libfoo_pic.a.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, it would take a long time for everyone to adopt that, but
> >>>libtool
> >>>itself could easily adopt such a scheme, which may help speed up it's
> >>>acceptance ...
> >>
> >>There is no problem with libtool built libraries, since you can tell
> >>whether
> >>an ar library was made with pic or non-pic objects from the .la file.
> >>The difficulty comes when trying to figure out what type of objects
> >>non-libtool libraries were built with...
> >
> >exactly, adding a marker let's you know.
> The marker you suggest (special library naming) would cause builds 
> which do not know about the marker scheme to fail unless the linker 
> hides the special naming.

how?  there is both libfoo.a and libfoo_pic.a.  They would be no
worse off than now.  the thing is, libtool could know to pick
libfoo_pic.a ass opposed to libfoo.a when it needs PIC.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]