Hi Charles, thanks for chiming in.
* Charles Wilson wrote on Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:52:19PM CEST: > My preference going forward would be: > > 1) assuming no further objections (and, I believe Dave has adequately > address ALL objections /except/ Roumen's), merge Dave's patch forthwith. > > 2) Begin a discussion about how to accommodate Roumen's concerns, > which have not been addressed by Dave's changes, but without breaking > Dave's (that is, gcc's) use of the -bindir option. I agree. > I'd suggest, perhaps, adding a *different* libtool option, e.g. > -abs-bindir, that works semantically as Roumen desires. Then, later, gcc > may choose to use either -bindir or -abs-bindir, whatever seems best to > them. I'm probably overlooking something with this suggestion, but I'd > prefer if, rather than extending this thread and delaying #1 above any > longer, we postpone discussion of how what I've just said is all wrong > until after #1, and we're into the discussion of #2. We can think about -abs-bindir. #1 is waiting to be committed to GNU Libtool only for the finishing of DaveK's copyright papers; then I will commit it (along with a couple of fixes, one of which has shown up in GCC already and the other is in Libtool testsuite-only code). Cheers, Ralf
