Subject: re: gcc/binutils/gdb import proposal
To: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
Date: 07/16/2000 23:22:54
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, matthew green wrote:
: Build structure for gcc-2.95.2. "libgcc" is compiled -fpic;
: "libgccP" is compiled -fPIC, only on platforms needing an alternate.
: will you have libgccP be used automatically? on the SPARC, anything
: moderately large really needs -fPIC.. we currently build most things
: with -fPIC there...
This was the idea; it's how multilib works in a multilib-prepped gcc (though
it normally uses different directories instead of alternative filenames to
differentiate the libraries; I could do this too).
I was planning to make c++rt0 use a similar paradigm for selection. This
has been missing for Quite Some Time.
: everything else looks great, though i don't really get the point of
: moving everything in to usr.bin/binutils...i'd just get rid of the
: binutils directory there entirely. i think, in particular, moving
: GDB there is wrong.
Well, I wanted at least to group those things found in a distribution. What
prompted me to move gdb inside was that it uses libbfd (and comes
from the same Redhat source tree); we've already run into users who forget
to build bfd before binutils, gas.new, ld.new, and gdb.
It's... awkward, I'll admit, but as long as gdb comes with a "don't forget
to build libbfd!!" warning, it can go outside gnu/usr.bin/binutils.
-- Todd Vierling (firstname.lastname@example.org)