On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Matt Burgess <matt...@linuxfromscratch.org> wrote: > > 1) We currently assume that binutils is 'upstream' for libiberty > development, and should therefore 'own' the libiberty.a file. Is that > assumption correct?
No. The master sources for libiberty are in the GCC repository. > 2) The --disable-install-libiberty configure switch for GCC does *not* > suppress the installation of libiberty.a (see also [0] and [1]). It's > unclear whether it should as the './configure --help' output only > mentions the suppression of header installation, but libiberty.texi > mentions the suppression of libiberty.a as well. Do folks here think > that '--disable-install-libiberty' should suppress installation of the > archive as well as the headers? If so, is the fact that it doesn't a > GCC bug or a binutils bug (if the assumption in 1. above holds, I'd also > assume that the copy of libiberty in GCC's source tree is taken verbatim > from there, and therefore this is a binutils bug). I agree that --disable-install-libiberty should prevent installing libiberty.a. This would then be a GCC bug. Ian
