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
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 libiberty functions is IMHO not acceptable.
we c
