Re: PIC and libiberty

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>]

Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> writes:

> I've read through the threads in December regarding H.J.'s attempt to
> use libtool in libiberty.  It's too bad it didn't work out.
> 
> However, I didn't find a rationale for this:
> 
>     2004-12-25  David Edelsohn  <edelsohn@gnu.org>
> 
>             Revert 2004-12-08 Makefile changes.
> 
> and I didn't see a rationale for why H.J.'s original patch wasn't then
> acceptable to commit.  Granted, it would be nicer to use libtool (as
> DJ originally suggested), but since that approach has been tried and
> dropped, shouldn't we at least make the more conservative change
> H.J. originally proposed?

To which one of H.J.'s patches are you referring?

There is this one:
    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-12/msg00202.html
but it was only required because of the change which David Edelsohn
checked in (with my approval) and then reverted.

The reversion patch message was here:
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg01926.html

David Edelsohn's patch was based on a bug report from Steve Ellcey,
but Steve's real problem turned out to be that he was using an old
version of make.

> I ask because CGEN-generated CPU components for SID depend on
> libiberty, and they are shared libraries.  So right now those
> components are broken in SID, because they can't find PIC object
> files for libiberty.

None of the patches referenced above would fix that.

Is the problem that there are no PIC object files for libiberty (they
would be in the object directory libiberty/pic)?  Or is the problem
that they do exist, but that the SID build procedure can't find them?

Ian