[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [RFC] New library "type" needed?

From: Brian Dessent
Subject: Re: [RFC] New library "type" needed?
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:42:54 -0700

Charles Wilson wrote:

> I have a library that I want to build shared (let's call it "libbfd").
> It depends on a portability library that is currently built as a
> non-libtool, static library (let's call it "libiberty"). <g>

I completely understand the motivation for the meat of this, speaking in
the hypothetical sense, but why would you ever want to build libbfd
shared?  It is always built static by default even on ELF systems, for
the same reason as libiberty - it is not expected to expose anything
resembling a stable or maintained ABI.  And its maintainers do not want
the burden of having to maintain an ABI given its history of not being
designed as such.  So it seems like a really bad idea to jump through
hoops to make it shared, as you'd end up with the situation you
mentioned dozens of cygbfd-<long string>.dll files to satisfy all the
various consumers.


reply via email to

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