Re: Shared Libraries and naming conventions
At 00:25 +0100 1999-05-30, Alan Cox wrote:
The glibc library doesnt currently meet the requirements of the LSB anyway,
it contains code designed to give cygnus a compiler monopoly. In fact someone
should probably ask RMS to either get this fixed or remove the gnu name
from the product.
The glibc developers have good reason to recommend egcs for compiling
the library itself, and with the egcs^Wgcc steering committee being
made the official maintainer of gcc, it's a moot point anyway.
I find your suggestion that it contains code designed merely to "give
cygnus a compiler monopoly" offensive.
Also another horror pending is that cygnus are going to break the c++
interfaces (again) in egcs 2.95->gcc 3.0 in order to sort all the standards
compliance and stuff out (RTH assures me it really really has to be done
but it'll stil be a pain)
egcs 1.1.2 -> gcc 2.95 libstdc++ are not perfectly compatible, glibc
2.1's dynamic linker complains about symbols having changed size in
the shared object and suggests relinking when a libstdc++-linked
binary is run.
Other than that, there seem to be no issues, but the screenfull of
warnings is ugly.
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy) Debian GNU/Linux Developer
<URL:mailto:jk@espy.org> <URL:mailto:espy@debian.org>
<URL:http://web.espy.org/> <URL:http://www.debian.org/>
Reply to: