2009/12/3 Dave Korn :
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>>
Are rpaths as portable as shared libraries or do we support a host
architecture that has shared libraries but no equivalent to rpath?
>>> Windows (mingw) comes to mind at least.
>>
>> If the hyp
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>
>>> Are rpaths as portable as shared libraries or do we support a host
>>> architecture that has shared libraries but no equivalent to rpath?
>> Windows (mingw) comes to mind at least.
>
> If the hypothetical libiberty.dll were
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> > Are rpaths as portable as shared libraries or do we support a host
> > architecture that has shared libraries but no equivalent to rpath?
>
> Windows (mingw) comes to mind at least.
If the hypothetical libiberty.dll were only used by cc1 etc. (not by
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> Are rpaths as portable as shared libraries or do we support a host
>> architecture that has shared libraries but no equivalent to rpath?
>
> Windows (mingw) comes to mind at least.
Cygwin too, of course, and I think Darwin may have some quirks in that area
as well.
> Are rpaths as portable as shared libraries or do we support a host
> architecture that has shared libraries but no equivalent to rpath?
Windows (mingw) comes to mind at least.
Arno
2009/11/29 Basile STARYNKEVITCH :
> Hello All,
>
> I believe there are several plugin issues to fix before 4.5 releases:
>
> 1. use of libiberty from plugins.
>
> As several patches recently sent demonstrated, the current state of the
> trunk does not work with plugins calling some of the libibert
